This report is very inadequate. What about the duty of the doctor to respect the human rights of the patient? What about the duty of the doctor to behave in a lawful manner? Do these take second place to the new duty "to make care of your patient your first concern."

In the case of a non-therapeutic male circumcision of a child who is not old enough to consent, who is the patient? Is the patient the child, or is the patient the parent who requests a circumcision? What if a circumcision (which amputates large amounts of sexually sensitive skin) violates the patient's right to bodily integrity and personal autonomy? In these cases, does the doctor still have to do a circumcision?

George Hill, Port Allen, Louisiana, USA

I was born a 3rd generation Jehovah's Witness in 1957 and endured the Watchtower's no blood commandment with longstanding bleeding Crohn's disease.The Watchtower leadership expects followers to die for their dogma and many have.The medical staff get blamed and are 'damned if they do damned if they don't'.
---
Danny Haszard

Danny Haszard, Maine, usa

I find it extraordinary that a doctor can pick and choose the treatments to offer. It is all very well saying they are obliged to pass a patient on to another doctor if it conflicts with their conscience but that supposes there will be a doctor available who has no such confliction. Obviously, as no doctor is obliged to offer services, you could get to the point where they supply none. This is a ridiculous situation. Surely if you object to some aspect of your profession you should not be in it or, at least, performing it fully whilst making representations etc.

Once again religion seeks special priviliges (I assume being a cycle club member will not be considered valid) whilst letting the rest make the difficult decisions and he assumption by the religious that "non believers" find it easier to do the sort of things they won't is, frankly, outrageous.

Martin Hughes, Oxford, UK

What do you mean when you say doctors must respect the views of Jehovah's witnesses who refuse a blood transfusion?
If it is life-saving and if it concerns minor children, what exactly do you mean by "respect"? Your leadere is not helpful

stephen bull, fontes, france

I would be extremely offended by a doctor who wanted to base treatment on unproven beliefs instead of the best medical science. I think it is sometimes forgotten that those not attached to a religion or having no supernatural belief have exactly the same rights as the religious and are now frequently being deeply offended by religious practises and pronouncements and Sectarian schools. I suspect the general public are getting very fed up with this avalanche of religion and particularly with the holier than thou claim that religions have a higher moral stance than the non religious. By empowering and funding religions New Labour have turned religion from a benign practise into a form of oppression for many and at the next election I believe this will be a major issue where being a religious politician will be serious vote loser.

Keith, Rayleigh, England

Some forms of female circumcision do *less* damage than male circumcision, and one form is the exact equivalent. Even making an incision on a girl's genitals is illegal though, whereas we're now being told that UK doctors must "assist" a family that want to have the most sensitive part of their son's genitals cut off.

I regard both male and female circumcision of non-consenting children as abhorrent. The fastest way to end female circumcision is to end non-medical male circumcision at the same time.

Mark Lyndon, Manchester, UK