Neil Howard and Rebecca Steinfeld's article questions whether it is time to ban male circumcision, effectively putting the case for a ban. They raise important questions, and the debate on circumcision is by no means settled.

However, I think they are wrong. A ban would have a disproportionate impact on Muslims' and Jews' rights to religious practice and cannot be justified on the current scientific evidence.

The article is premised on a flawed comparison with female genital mutilation, which has rightly been outlawed in the UK since 1985. In 2008, the World Health Organisation (WHO), the United Nations and other international bodies issued a joint statement stating that female genital mutilation has "no known health benefits", is "painful and traumatic … [It] interferes with the natural functioning of the body and causes several immediate and long-term health consequences".

Howard and Steinfeld argue that male circumcision also causes "excruciating pain, nerve destruction, infection, disfigurement and sometimes death". But what does the WHO say? It advises that circumcision of babies results in "a very low rate of adverse events, which are usually minor (0.2–0.4%)". When male circumcision is performed by well-trained, equipped and experienced healthcare personnel, "complications are minor and rare". It has even produced a manual aimed at providers of infant male circumcision in order to prevent HIV infection. In short, the WHO effectively recommends one practice but deplores the other.

The article also argues that male circumcision, like female genital mutilation, is associated with "managing sexuality". The Jewish sage and doctor Maimonides may have believed that in the 12th century, but the WHO makes clear that today, in clear contrast to female genital mutilation, there is simply "no evidence of this".

I disagree with the authors that the difference in treatment of boys and girls amounts to discrimination. Comparing male circumcision with female genital mutilation is not comparing like with like.

As is the case with many religious customs, what appears normal from within can seem bizarre from the outside. Judging from the comments on the article, many (including Russell Crowe) see circumcision as barbaric and unnecessary, but in reality the practice is accepted as normal in Islam and Judaism.

Banning male circumcision would have an enormous effect on religious practice. In Judaism, circumcision is one of the most basic requirements of the religion, although it should be noted that Jewish law prohibits circumcision if it would be unsafe for the child.

That said, just because a custom is old and religiously significant should not make it immune to the law. As Lord Justice Laws said in a recent ruling on Christian relationship counselling to gay couples:

"Legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled."

As a liberal democracy, we must place religious ritual under principled scrutiny. To that end, Steinfeld and Howard's strongest argument is not on health but on consent. Why should a child be forced to lose part of their body which they cannot get back?

The courts have ruled on parental consent to circumcision although not on whether a child needs to be asked too. But the argument places "irreversible" bodily damage in a different category to other kinds of harm. This is a shaky distinction. There are many ways in which a parent can do irreversible damage to a child: psychologically through incessant bullying, or physically through a bad diet. In addressing these problems, we should try education and incentives before resorting to sanctions and punishments.

If circumcision were banned in the UK, there would be a strong case that the ban breached human rights law. Article 9 of the European convention on human rights gives everyone the right to "freedom of thought, conscience and religion". However, that right can be limited by the state if, for example, a restriction was necessary in the interests of public safety, health or the freedoms of others.

For example, the European court of human rights ruled in 1978 that the compulsory use of crash helmets was a proportionate interference with the rights of turban-wearing Sikhs. But the public safety case on motorcycle helmets is clear. In the case of infant male circumcision, it is not. And in any event, the UK has still exempted Sikhs from wearing helmets.

As a lawyer, I doubt that we will see such a UK ban unless there was strong scientific evidence that it was, on balance, harmful. At present, the evidence of harm is simply not strong enough. This should be kept under review. As a father and an Orthodox Jew, if there was significant evidence of harm, I would not subject my child to the practice. I would also expect religious authorities to restrict male circumcision before such a ban was needed. But on the current evidence, a ban is unnecessary.

Adam Wagner is a barrister specialising in human rights, public and medical law, and edits the UK Human Rights Blog.