In "Circumcision is an affront to decent human behaviour", (Comment), Catherine Bennett put male circumcision on a par with female genital mutilation.

Female genital circumcision implies the removal of the clitoris, sometimes with the inner labia, sometimes infibulation. It is often practised with blunt razors or knives and without anaesthetics. The risks: fatal haemorrhaging, cysts, urinary and vaginal infections, chronic pain, obstetrical complications.

Male circumcision, in the Jewish community, is done on a baby aged only a few days. In the case of my baby son, it was performed in a hospital and he was brought back to me after less than 10 minutes, fast asleep. Circumcision reduces female to male HIV transmission and is recommended by the World Health Organisation in countries with high endemic HIV rates. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that it affects function, sensation or satisfaction.

Renee Wartski

London WC1

Catherine Bennett is incorrect in describing female genital mutilation (FGM) as the "equivalent" of circumcision. Granted, both procedures involve a surgical modification of the external genitals of a non-consenting child. Both are, in my view, unacceptable.

There are, however, great differences: female genital mutilation is illegal in the UK and in many other countries worldwide, including in Africa. Circumcision is lawful. So campaigners against circumcision need to get into dialogue with the Jewish and Muslim communities and press for a change in the law.

Also, FGM has many forms, the mildest of which involves removal of the hood of the clitoris, the prepuce. In more severe forms, it entails the removal of the entire clitoris. Then there's infibulation, in which the inner or outer lips of the vulva are cut and then stitched together, to allow only a small aperture for the passing of urine and menstrual blood.

Vera Lustig

Walton-on-Thames

Surrey

With reference to Catherine Bennett's polemic on male circumcision, she should give more attention to the WHO's statement that male circumcision can be a positive boon in relation to sexual cleanliness. That hidden space underneath the flap of foreskin is indeed a fertile breeding ground for bacteria and disease. The German court's ban on male circumcision has rightly been overturned by its parliament. Babies and young children are not able to make rational decisions as to their welfare: their parents have to decide how they are fed; what names they shall be known by; what schools they will go to; to which religion they will be directed; all of which decisions have a significant effect on their later life. The only effect of male circumcision on their later life is enhanced cleanliness and hygiene.

Jake Wright

Chichester

Congratulations for publishing Catherine Bennett's piece on circumcision. Congratulations also to the German court that decided it constituted grievous bodily harm. There are one or two points I would like clarification on, though. Are there any other purely cosmetic procedures that the BMA allows parents to make "to promote their children's interests"? Where is he coming from, this German rabbi who called the court's decision "perhaps the most serious attack on Jewish life in Europe since the Holocaust"? Just how unreal does religion get? At all events, it should never be a basis for exemptions from the law.

Andrew Potts

Wallsend