To think infant circumcision is wrong but also that a total ban on it will not work and is not the most effective way to tackle it?

[Carla786]

On the recent threads after the tragic death of the baby boy who died from circumcision performed by a non medical professional, there have been a lot of calls for a total ban on here.
Now, I think infant circumcision is very wrong. But in practice I do not think a ban will work.
Most cultural circumcisions are performed by medically trained people. Backstreet ones need to be cracked down on with the full force of the law, but they are not typical.
Second, circumcision is key in Islam. However, while most agree it’s either compulsory or strongly recommended, age requirements are not as stringent in mandating someone has to be a minor. I think there is some hope sensitive campaigning within the community could maybe make more families consider leaving it until their son is at least maybe an older adolescent with more ability to choose.
Judaism – circumcision is central to Orthodox, Ultra Orthodox Haredi ofc, and more liberal Masorti and Reform. It is extremely unlikely that any law or external pressure would stop these practices, because brit milah is a covenantal obligation tied to Jewish identity. Attempting a blanket ban would likely trigger defensiveness, fear, maybe underground circumcisions and probably emigration of at least some to Israel or elsewhere, rather than protect children.
Focusing on sterile procedures, trained practitioners, and medical supervision would be more likely to significantly reduce risk. Jews have experienced persecution for circumcision in the past (e.g., Hellenistic bans and European restrictions), so any attempt to criminalise it today can feel existential. This is only heightened by the terrible upsurge in anti Semitism recently.

I agree with sentiments behind calling for a ban - I just thing measures short of a ban are more likely to work.

American paediatricians are great (if you're insured), but they do enjoy an extra procedure when they can slip one in because, well, profit.

And there is a growing campaign in the states against the practice. Our very own Alan Cumming is a voice int he campaign against cutting baby boys.

Im not in the UK. And the experts who reviewed the evidence aren't benefitting personally.
It really seems to bother you that a group of experts found the benefits outweighed the risks so you can dismiss it with 'oh, they're americans'.
Even in UK, professional bodies are neutral on this. Again, firmly within parental choice, bearing in mind that this is a simpler procedure when younger

No I'm dismissing it because whether or not you're in the UK this thread is about the news stories and intention to possibly ban circumcision in the UK. Whether the doctors benefit financially grom the review (which I didn't say they did?) they do financially benefitting from performing routine circumcision onn make babies for no medical reason. Saying there is no medical benefit to routine circumcision isn't what I would call neutral and they don't advocate firmly for parental choice either so maybe go have a read.

This is a neutral assessment of the evidence.
BTW, in the UK circumcision is done privately to so absolutely no difference. Doctors can profit from it.

Point is that there is clearly not consensus that this is harmful to a baby. Many have found evidence that there is a net benefit on the whole as well as most men feeling totally fine with having been circumcised. And thus well within the remit of parental authority when you bring in cultural and religious importance. As it currently is in basically every country.

Clearly you have little insight into the UK and it's medical regulations. Private doctors are still subject to the same GMC requirements hence why many doctors are alarmed at the rate of these "private" doctors performing procedures in a way that doesn't comply with GMC requirements. Private doctors can profit from all sorts which is why I don't take their opinion that a procedure that perform on almost half of the healthy babies is harmless with any sort of seriousness. I'm much more interested in listening to doctors who are making recommendations for our national healthcare which isn't run for profit and their calls to regular this procedure are based complete ton harm reduction, because they seem the harm being caused by these private doctors or by those with no registration. Causing a baby extreme pain and a permanent body medication is harm when it's done with no medical reason and there is no way for you to argue otherwise unless you just proudly don't believe in consent and bodily autonomy and the principal of Doctors to cause no harm. So actually yes in the UK there is consensus that it causes harm and people are trying to reduce harm even if that means regulating it.

Doctors who carry out circumcision for non medical reasons are laying themselves wide open for trouble with the GMC, especially if anything goes wrong.

One of the reasons Trusts that did perform it for ritual reasons stopped and no longer had it funded was because of the number of complications and litigations following the complications and these were circumcisions being performed diligently in proper medical sterile environments . Obviously any surgical intervention has risks of complications but when there isn't a therapeutic reason to perform a procedure the risks Vs benefits point PP is making has no basis. We weigh up risks and benefits for medical procedures that are needed because there's a risks and benefits to be weighed up against not performing the procedure.

Actually the whole push for regulation of circumcision is that it should be done by trained medical professionals.
The issue is that the GMC doesnt support circumcision in the community. So that means if a family want a Gmc registered doctor then the circumcision needs to be done in a hospital.

Of course, it's non therapeutic. But the evidence still shows benefits outweigh risks when done as a baby and complications increase with age.
Therefore it is a decision well within the remit of parental authority.
I mean, if we dont mandate vaccination and allow parents to choose then definitely circumcision which is either a net benefit or neutral overall should be allowed with cultural and religious importance.

If you had a baby with a massive birth mark on its face, not harmful in any way but disfiguring and surgically treating it immediately would have lower risks than waiting until adulthood, would it be ok for parents to choose to have it removed for a baby?

There no choosing between GMC registered or non GMC registered doctors. If you're not registered with the GMC you are not a legally practicing doctor. Why should any surgical procedure be performed in a non sterile environment? It's not just about it being performed by medical professionals, it's also about it being performed in a proper environment and with the same requirements as other medical procedures, but as I said when they were doing this before in NHS hospitals the rate of complications and lawsuits weren't deemed to be worth continuing to perform a procedure with no therapeutic reason.

Of course, it's non therapeutic. But the evidence still shows benefits outweigh risks when done as a baby and complications increase with age.
Well it would be less risky on a baby who wouldn’t have the ability to identify the painful area and tug at the wound. Doesn’t make it right.
If you had a baby with a massive birth mark, not harmful in any way but disfiguring and surgically treating it immediately would have lower risks than waiting until adulthood, would it be ok for parents to choose to have it removed for a baby?
I had a baby with a massive birth mark, not harmful, now he is 10. The hospital has monitored him, they advised us that it is best to leave it until he decides, whenever he is asked, he is not ready, he has experienced some teasing, not much as he’s a big strong boy. Doctors prefer for patients to have the last say even in childhood, obviously babies can’t talk.

Of course, it's non therapeutic
Precisely so how do you justify even just the pain of the procedure and recovery going "well" as not harmful? You're subjecting a non consenting child to a painful and unnecessary procedure.

Foreskins aren't birthmarks though are they? There's no medical benefit to having a birthmark and no one's having unlicenced people performing birthmarks in their living room. Removing a birthmark also doesn't have the same long term downsides and complications either. I haven't been in that position but I'd like to think I'd apply the same principal as I do to piercings that I'd wait until my child was old enough to know they want it removed. You're better of comparing to should I be allowed to tattoo my child's face because my family find it an important custom and they won't remember the pain of we do it now, which sounds as insane as using the same argument to justify mutilating their genitals.

You keep repeating it's a net neutral and completely ignoring the evidence of complications which caused the procedure to no longer be performed in NHS hospitals. It's not a net neutral.

There’s no way hospital trusts have the money or staff time to fund this. Resources are stretched beyond the limit already. Services are being cut, they are not going to add a non essential service.

The Graun, timely article.

May I ask where you are? The US? I understand if you don't wish to say.

Making it illegal is the only way really.

The document sounds lile they're looking at prosecuting it as abuse if it's done unsafely, not at an outright ban.

'The draft CPS guidance states that, unlike female genital mutilation, “there is not a specific criminal offence of carrying out male circumcision”.

“However, this can be a painful and harmful practice, if carried out incorrectly or in inappropriate circumstances. It may be a form of child abuse or an offence against the person,” it adds.'

The staments from religious leaders certainly don't sound like they'd cooperate with a ban...☹️ :

Jonathan Arkush, a former president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and co-chair of Milah UK, which promotes and protects the right of the Jewish community to carry out religious circumcision, said the wording in the draft CPS guidance was misleading.“To suggest that circumcision is in itself a harmful practice, is deeply pejorative and misplaced,” he said. “Any procedure that is carried out inappropriately or without proper controls, including piercing a child’s ears, could be a harmful practice and a possible case of child abuse.” He added: “We shall certainly be talking to the CPS. I would very much expect that final draft not to include it, as it is so obviously incorrect and/or misleading.”
Arkush, who is also a barrister, accepted that if performed incorrectly, circumcision could constitute abuse, but he insisted the “The incidence of complications in circumcision performed in the Jewish community is vanishingly rare,” he said.“Circumcision is a core part of our identity. I have never met any Jewish man who thinks they’ve been harmed by circumcision.”

The Muslim Council of Britain said it supported the coroner’s call for stronger safeguards and a system of accreditation.
“Male circumcision is a lawful practice in the UK with recognised medical, religious and cultural foundations, and it should not be characterised in itself as child abuse,” it said.

Rabbi Jonathan Romain, the convener of Reform Beit Din, Progressive Judaism’s religious court, defended circumcision as an “enormously powerful symbolic act of identity”.
But he said action was needed to ensure the number of medically qualified practitioners kept pace with demographic change.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jan/10/circumcision-classed-as-possible-child-abuse-in-draft-cps-document

Of course they shouldn't. It should be private if non therapeutic. Could help generate money for the NHS actually

You don't know the impact of birthmarks and what role they might play.
You might not want to remove your child's birthmark but im sure youd agree that it's within a parent's remit to decide whether this would be in their child's best interest

And of course nhs shouldn't pay for circumcision done for non medical reasons, like they shouldn't pay for removal of a facial birth mark.

Im not saying YOU should circumcise your sons. Im not saying the NHS should pay. Im not saying it should be unregulated and anyone can do it anywhere. I'm saying that parents make decisions that they think in their child's best interest all the time and, given the current evidence and potential benefits and risk including the increased complications of the procedure as an adult and huge social/cultural/religious importance, safe infant circumcision is well within a parents' authority to decide.
Especially if we allow parents not to vaccinate kids, infestimably more harmful including to others.

You're not legally able to practice medicine but you are able to carry out circumcisions. Thats the difference. You can be a doctor and not registered with the GMC, you just dont have a licence to practice medicine in the UK.

Plenty of private hospitals and clincis offer non therapeutic circumcision.

Well, once we've made not vaccinating babies illegal which will save far more babies from death and injury, even assuming that circumcision is harmful.

If we allow parents to choose not to vaccinate kids then we cant ban circumcision. Either parents have choice or they don't

No because again we come back to ethics, Drs are well aware of their ethical responsibilities and the risks they take if they do something that could be deemed unethical. And as I pointed out before the private hospitals are all about optics, and are on the whole very risk averse. Our local private hospital is part of a big chain, zero chance will they allow this procedure.

Took me two minutes of goggling to find a private hospital with gmc registered doctors which does non therapeutic circumcision.
https://www.princeclinic.co.uk/prince-clinic

I think in an increasingly secular country, performing a religious ritual on a baby, which causes physical harm and distress, is no longer acceptable. In a modern world, with modern sensibilities, these kind of ancient rituals are difficult to condone. Religious freedoms should no longer automatically equate to bring able to distress and disfigure. Religions should change and adapt to modern sensibilities.