Six million pounds, how did we arrive at that amount?
In the U.K. the number of circumcisions done for medical reasons is about 6% of the male population (F.O.I. requests are pending). The number of circumcisions in other North West European countries, performed for medical reasons is very small. A fair estimate is 1% of the male population [9].
Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that in 2010 there were 398,500 male births in the U.K. 6% of 398,500 is 23,910 which is the probable number of boys circumcised by the N.H.S. for “medical reasons”.
If the cost of an individual procedure, including after care, is taken as £300 (the cost of a circumcision to the N.H.S may well be as high as £868) then the total cost comes to £7,173,000. Reducing the rate of circumcisions to 1% would save the N.H.S. £5,977,500 each year. This takes no account of possible damages awarded to victims of this misguided policy in the future as a result of likely legal actions.
Do boys in the U.K. really need circumcision “for medical reasons” at a rate that is six times greater than the rate seen in other N.W. European countries?
In Germany and Austria the annual rate of circumcisions done for medical reasons is even higher than “only” 6 per cent.
The circumcision rate (religious circumcisions not included) in Germany is approximately 12%…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17514470?dopt=Abstract
Do boys in Germany and Austria really need circumcision “for medical reasons” at a rate that is TWO TIMES higher than the already too high rate in the UK and TEN TIMES greater than the rate seen in N.W. European countries?
It is appalling that the NHS has gone back on the decision of the Gardner report where it was announced that non-therapeutic genital cutting would not be paid for! It should not even be possible to elect to have a child’s genitals modified at a whim. Another example of politicians not following a decision to its logical conclusion, namely a ban. Belatedly girls were protected, so why not boys?