On May 16, an article about me was published in the East London Guardian about a talk I gave. Unfortunately, not everything in the article did represent my views. I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight.

  • Read the original article here.

Firstly, it was wrongly suggested that I was calling for a ban on ‘circumcision’.

Where circumcision has a medical indication and is the least invasive and most effective treatment for a medical problem, then it should be considered as a treatment option. I advocate an end to 'non-therapeutic childhood circumcision'.

Secondly, I do not call for a ban. Had I been asked, I would have explained my view that a new ban should be unnecessary where a practice that should already be covered by existing legislation is still being permitted. The forced cutting of children's genitals already breaches the 1861 Offences against the Person Act.

During the interview it was put to me that circumcising a baby boy might be like ear piercing, or removing a birth mark or skin grafts. I replied with the established medical principle that non-therapeutic procedures should not be performed on children without their consent.

Ear piercing and removing birthmarks that are not medically problematic should be choices of the person themselves. Skin grafts for scarring might be able to wait but equally may be medically indicated before the child attains the capacity for consent.

Unfortunately, the article implied that I would disapprove of a child with burns having necessary skin grafts which is certainly not the case.

The article states: 'The practice of circumcision was recently banned in both Denmark and Germany...’ This is not my understanding. In December 2016, the Danish Medical Association came out strongly against ritual circumcision describing it as ‘ethically unacceptable’; there is no ban. Far from being banned in Germany, ritual circumcision of the most vulnerable babies was actively legalised in 2012.

The article misleadingly represented me as in direct opposition to ‘the NHS’ in terms of HIV infection control. On the contrary, the NHS does not promote circumcision of adults or children in the UK for control of HIV or for any other infection. There is some controversial evidence that voluntary circumcision of men in sub-Saharan Africa might afford some protection to them from HIV transmission.

My focus, however, is on infant and childhood circumcision in the UK and relates to people with no medical indication to operate.

I was quoted as describing a man who tried to sue doctors because of ‘frequent infections.’ This was not the case. The man, who described severe adverse effects from his childhood ritual circumcision, had tried to sue the doctor because he had been left with a sinus on his penis, painful erections, pain every time he passed urine and severe scarring. The urologist who examined him told him that he was unlikely to succeed in a prosecution because these were fairly common side effects.

A quote attributed to me that children’s penises ‘drop off’ was an inaccurate description of the fact that some children will suffer necrosis (tissue death) of their penis.

One link to the article describes me as ‘the doctor who thinks male circumcision is a barbaric form of mutilation’. These are not my words. My words are that the surgical assignation of a child’s genitals with the religious or cultural preferences of his or her parents should be unthinkable and is causing immense harm, much of which is rarely talked about precisely because the injury is to the most intimate part of the body.

  • Editor's note: We have amended the original article here. We apologise for any embarrassment caused.