Stumbling into a debate concerning medical and religious ethics with little or no background knowledge can lead to wild and offensive claims, far removed from facts.

Thus, in Ronald McGrath’s letter recent letter (A ‘barbaric’ practice?, Letters, March 15), members of major religious communities were compared outrageously to paedophiles.

READ MORE: Letter: Should male circumcision be banned?

Mr McGrath based his conclusion on comparing Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) with male circumcision. He ignores the differences.

FGM can result in the removal of the clitoris, removal of the labia, and/or stitching up the vagina, making intercourse extremely painful. Male circumcision consists of the removal of a flap of skin.

The procedures used in FGM are never indicated medically. Those used for male circumcision are used on occasion for medical reasons, including in some countries for HIV prevention.

The intention of FGM is to dominate and control women with a callous disregard for the severe pain and lifelong dysfunction that the practice causes. It is rightly a crime under the laws of this country.

In contrast, according to the United Nation’s (UN) World Health Organisation, one third of all the men in the world are circumcised. It is inconceivable that this proportion of men have damaged sexual and/or personal lives.

The UN is campaigning to eradicate FGM. There is no UN campaign against male circumcision and in some countries it is even encouraged.

If we acknowledge the facts, then we can discuss issues in a calm manner, and avoid incendiary rhetoric that demonises whole communities and whips up inter-communal hatred. We saw the effects that hate can have when 50 worshippers were massacred at prayer in New Zealand.

Professor David Katz and Jonathan Arkush

Co-chairs, Milah UK