Hello and welcome to another week.

Our question this week focuses on an issue which is highly divisive, and so controversial that even the President of the Family Division said of it,“These are deep waters which I hesitate to enter.”

The subject is Male Genital Mutilation, often referred to as circumcision. Carried out as a form of religious ritual, or under the guidance of some medical professionals as a form of good hygiene, MGM involves surgery to remove the foreskin covering the glans of the penis.

Those who argue in favour of the practice say it offers certain health benefits, including lowering the risk of cancer, preventing the acquisition of sexually transmitted diseases, and reducing the likelihood of urinary tract infections occurring. Those against the practice cite research which contradicts current held beliefs about the benefits and consider it a form of child abuse.

The President of the Family Division, Lord Justice Munby has also likened circumcision to Female Genital Mutilation, which is currently illegal in the UK:

“Given the comparison between what is involved in male circumcision and FGM WHO Type IV, to dispute that the more invasive procedure involves the significant harm involved in the less invasive procedure would seem almost irrational. In my judgment, if FGM Type IV amounts to significant harm, as in my judgment it does, then the same must be so of male circumcision.”

Our question to you then, is just this: do you agree with Lord Justice Munby, and if so, should circumcision be illegal in the UK?

Questions

Advertisements