Letter: NHS ethics
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Dr Janet Menage informs us (letter, 25 September) of the NHS Executive's position that "male circumcision on ... social grounds is not an appropriate NHS service". One could give them some credit for consistency if they also said the same about abortion.
As things stand, NHS bureaucrats see fit to encourage the poisoning and premature expulsion of unborn children, typically in response to social problems, not maternal medical problems, while deploring the removal of a foreskin. Even if one considers the mother alone, to perform an abortion on a healthy woman is open to far greater ethical objections than some would raise against male circumcision. For a doctor to act in breach of medical ethics on the grounds that if he does not, someone else will - the much-invoked spectre of the "backstreet operator" - is a sign of ethical bankruptcy.
BRENDAN GERARD
Information and Research Officer
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children
London SW1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments