“May I congratulate Dr Ahmed on his brave call to make circumcision available on the NHS. Let me also condemn those who suspended him for their obduracy. Clearly their only defence against his justified temerity is to demonstrate their power over him.

It¿s perfectly possible to have a public dialogue with him and others on this matter whilst he continues his regular duties. What purpose is served by his suspension other than to inconvenience his patients and the colleagues, who must cover for him? And that¿s not to mention what this ¿due process¿ will cost. If it drags on as seems likely, it would pay for many, many circumcisions.

The case made FOR circumcision on the NHS at parental request is unanswerable as made by Dr Ahmed and other posters here. Many of those who oppose infant circumcision have no medical argument. Like ¿flat earthers¿ they just continue to dismiss all supporting evidence old or new. They are driven by distorted emotions to repeat the misplaced mantras about mutilation and abuse.

A little more respectful diffidence in this debate would be welcome from all males who have not been circumcised and females who have no experience of a man who is. Opponents of circumcision are welcome to their personal views and in that matter can act accordingly with their own sons. However, they are wrong to rail against or obstruct parents who choose to circumcise for religion or health reasons. Both are equally valid.

Like many other men of mature years I was circumcised in childhood when it was considered fashionable and, like vaccination, good medical practice to prevent trouble before it can arise. If you don¿t have a foreskin you can¿t have a problem with it. Over thousands of years millions of men have lived happily without this troublesome appendage. I have always appreciated the health, and hygienic and sexual advantages it brings, as did my wife when she discovered my status.

It followed naturally we would want our boys to be circumcised. But no! Our request was dismissed by several in the medical profession. It is somewhat galling that had our sons been born much later, we could have availed ourselves of this service on the NHS. Over a dozen years ago Bradford Royal Infirmary set up the first regular circumcision clinic to serve the large muslim community in the city. It arose for precisely the same reasons as those Dr Ahmed is campaigning at UHNS and has been copied elsewhere in regions where there is similar demand.

Why should anyone who wants a circumcision be subject to the diktat of holier-than-thou officials or doctors? This is a personal choice parents have a legal right to make like many other life changing decisions as they bring up their children. We are supposed to have a NATIONAL Health Service. Why should the good people of North Staffordshire be denied a service available on the NHS elsewhere?”

“It is unfortunate that the article has been edited to make Dr Ahmed appear to say that circumcision has no medical benefits (the relevant paragraph reads "But other childhood operations with no medical benefit are freely available on the NHS ¿ including correcting bat ears, tonsillectomies and a procedure to prevent unsightly navels.")

I am sure that he may have referred to these other operations as having no medical benefits, but it is now very widely known by the medical profession (after 3 major trials) the circumcision provides up to 60% reduction in the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV/AIDS as well as HPV and several other STIs - and this in addition to totally preventing phimosis, paraphimosis, frenulum breve and balanoposthitis.

Although practiced by the Jewish and Muslim communities as a religious requirement (as well as by several other groups as part of their culture), circumcision has been intrinsically known for millennia to be of prophylactic benefit and this underlies these religious/cultural requirements. In modern times this intuitive knowledge of the long-term benefits has been scientifically tested and found to be proven correct.

Infant circumcision has prophylactic benefits for the child in the same way as immunisation does - and with far fewer adverse side effects. The NHS promotes and pays for routine immunisation since it knows that treating the diseases themselves later on is more expensive as well as putting the patient through unnecessary discomfort. Prophylactic infant circumcision prevents problems for the rest of the male's life as well as providing indirect benefits to his female partners. These problems cost more to cure than widespread infant circumcision would cost (as cost/benefit studies in Canada have shown). The consequences to the male himself of preventable STIs are also greater than those of most of the 'childhood' diseases against which the NHS offers free immunisation.

Infant circumcision under local anaesthetic is quicker, simpler, cheaper and with less trauma than waiting to do it later in life. The service should therefore be provided and promoted by every PCT in the country. Like immunisation, it would still be up to the parents to decide if they wanted it for their child or not.

The NHS provides free of charge many other procedures, drugs and devices which have no immediate medical benefit but are considered by parts of the community to be desirable for them. Circumcision has more proven benefits than these and should be at least as freely available.”

“rite first of all do the the drunken people pay for there treatment weather they have bieng fitting or just plain drunk that they can not walk mostly on the weekends this is rediculas. also do they have to go to other cites for there treatment no i dont think so.but us people who would like there child to be circmsied will pay for there treatment as a parent my self im looking to get my son circumsised. but i dont see why i can not get this done at north staffs hospital but drug addicts and drunken people can get treatment at north staffs hospitl its stupidity. im goin to spek to my gp about this as it is ludicris i am detimed to get this done at north staffs hospital yours faithly s marshall”

“First of all, the state should have no obligation to pay for a religious ritual. Second, circumcision, whether male or female, is child abuse and should be dealt with accordingly.”

“Mark Lyndon:
"Why is non-medical circumcision even legal without the patient's consent? Surely people should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want part of their genitals cut off."

I agree, it's completely unethical for doctors to cut off healthy parts of children's genitals. Maybe NHS should also consider offering a safe medical alternative to FGM to accommodate those who believe their daughters need circumcision as well.

Heck, if someone decides they want to tattoo their child, maybe its best if doctors do that too... and get into the earpiercing business while they are at it.

Doctors should be discouraging potential harmful cosmetic body modifications on children, not enabling them.”