There has been a concerted effort in the professional literature, from a small cabal within the medical fraternity, to argue the case for reinstating non-therapeutic circumcision at the expense of the NHS, frequently using professed concern for the well-being of boys of certain ethnic or religious backgrounds receiving circumcision in non-medical settings, as a pretext. Recently, there has been a string of mainstream media items favourable to male circumcision, which amount to nothing less than a marketing campaign to motivate parents to have their sons circumcised. Many of these articles draw upon established marketing concepts (in turn derived from insights of behavoiural science), most notably, the use of “experts”. In the context of promoting circumcision to parents, such “experts” generally include medical practitioners who work at private circumcision clinics and religious officials. Regardless of whether it is performed in a medical or non-medical setting, a significant number of boys subjected to the practice of circumcision will later fulfill the DSM-IV criteria for a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Circumcision removes the most sexually sensitive parts of a boy’s penis, including the foreskin, the frenulum, and the ridged band of nerves. The male foreskin is also designed to protect the glans of the penis throughout a man’s life, ensuring that the internal mucosal tissue remains moist and sensitive (much the same way that a woman’s clitoral hood protects the clitoris). In addition, the foreskin acts as a natural gliding mechanism to reduce chafing and dryness during intercourse. The British Medical Association advises against routine male circumcision, and no national medical association in the world recommends that boys be forcefully circumcised for preventive health reasons. There has been little incentive for the medical profession to investigate the long-term affects on men's sexual and psychological health and well-being, but the growth of groups such as NORM-UK (an organisation registered with the Charities Commissioners for England and Wales), suggests that a substantial number of men genuinely resent being circumcised. It is imperative that Department of Health and Public Health England mandate that all staff, contractors, agencies, facilities and departments under their auspices, including GPs and GP practices: Must not offer among their services the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision; Must not permit on their premises individuals or organisations promoting the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision; Must not be refer patients explicitly for the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision; Must not be employed or associated with any facility offering the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision; Must not allow their facilities to be used for the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision.; and Must not stock or allow on their premises literature or other material promoting the harmful male genital mutilation known as circumcision. Given the dearth of research in this area, it would be appropriate for the Department of Health and Public Health England to partner with registered charities such as NORM-UK and to create incentives for medical researchers to investigate the long-term affects of circumcision on men's sexual and psychological health and well-being.