Dr Martin Scurr has been treating patients for more than 30 years and is one of the country's leading GPs.
By the way... From my first days at medical school I opposed the circumcision of healthy baby boys, seeing it as an unnecessary and primitive ritual mutilation.
In any subsequent - often heated - discussion about the rights and wrongs, the fact that the human being concerned neither gives his permission nor has an anaesthetic (on many occasions) usually features high up on my reasons why.
But I might be about to change my views on the basis of an item of good research just published in the New England Journal Of Medicine.
The study was carried out on more than 5,000 adult men, half of whom were circumcised at the beginning of the trial and half of whom were circumcised after two years.
The finding from comparing the two groups was that the incidence of the herpes simplex (type 2) human papillomavirus (members of this family cause cancer of the cervix) and HIV were significantly reduced in the circumcised group - by up to 35 per cent and the study is on-going.
Circumcision protects men from disease because removal of the foreskin 'toughens up' the previously delicate and sensitive skin covering the glans of the penis. Therefore, it is harder for invading viruses to penetrate the skin.
The implication of these findings - that circumcision is an effective measure for reducing infections and significant sexually transmitted viruses - has raised questions about whether it should be encouraged at birth.
But ultimately, of course, it is not perfect protection - the only things that are being abstinence, complete monogamy within a relationship or the careful practice of safe sex.