Doctors, human-rights advocates and members of the Jewish and Muslim communities have joined politicians for a circumcision debate in the Danish parliament.

It took place a day after the publication of a poll showing that 74 per cent of Danes support a ban on non-medical male circumcision.

Dan Rosenberg Asmussen, chairman of the country's Jewish Community, said the local media was "filled with misinformation about circumcision and its effects". He added: "I'm not at all surprised about the outcome of the survey".

During the hearing, the Danish Health and Medicines Authority's director general, Else Smith, said a ban is not justified because the risks are not serious enough.

But two Danish parties and the country's children's ombudsman support a ban because they believe circumcision violates children's rights.

The Jewish community has set up a task force to inform Danish politicians and others on the matter.

“The tactic among those who oppose non-medical male circumcision is to convince more and more MPs that it is wrong, in the hope that a proposition for an outright ban will be put forward in parliament. So far there has been no such proposition and our job is to see to it that it doesn’t happen,” Mr Rosenberg Asmussen said.

He also stressed that a ban would likely constitute a violation of freedom of religion, which is guaranteed under Danish legislation.

In recent years, there have been heated debates about circumcision in Scandinavia. In 2013, ombudsmen and medical professionals from across the region met in Oslo, Norway and issued a common statement claiming that non-medical circumcision on boys under 18 breaches the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Norway's foreign minister later vowed that the country would not ban circumcision, though restrictions have been enforced so that the practice can now only be carried out at hospitals.

In 2013, following the publication of a study on the health risks and benefits of circumcision, the Danish Health and Medicines Authority determined that there was not enough evidence to merit either banning or encouraging male circumcision.