Australian state dumps circumcision

[Dasher]

An Australian state, Victoria, has ordered that routine circumcisions be stopped in its public hospitals. Although this defeat for circumcision took place in 2007, it is most likely news to you, since it has not been reported in U.S. news media. Nor has it been reported by the board's Australian circumcision troll. Anyway, here's the report:

Victoria to scrap public hospital circumcision
August 12, 2007 - 12:13PM

From next month, Victoria will be the fourth Australian state to no longer provide circumcisions at public hospitals for non-medical reasons.

From September, circumcisions will be performed in Victoria only where doctors determine there is a need because of concerns over infections or disease.

NSW, Western Australia and Tasmania have already implemented the change.

Victorian Health Minister Daniel Andrews today said there was no medical evidence to support routine circumcision of newborn males.

"In Australia and New Zealand, the circumcision rate has fallen considerably in recent years, and it is estimated that only 10 to 20 per cent of male infants are routinely circumcised," Mr Andrews said.

"Both nationally and overseas, doctors agree there is no medical benefit to routine circumcision, and studies show the complication rate is around five per cent."

Mr Andrews said parents who wish to have their son circumcised for religious reasons could have the procedure done in private hospitals.

About 2,200 circumcisions were carried out in Victorian public hospitals in 2005-6, costing about $2 million.

Mr Andrews said that money could be used to fund more urgent elective surgery procedures.

"It is important to ensure hospital services are prioritised towards treating patients who have a clinical need for surgery to improve their health," he said.

While recent studies of African countries suggested circumcision can reduce the rates of HIV, a report by the World Health Organisation concluded that in countries such as Australia, where HIV rates are low in the general population, limited benefit would result from routine circumcision, according to the Victorian government.

AAP

[z726]

I thought I'd remembered reading this here, but I went back and checked the Press Room forum and didn't see it. I'm sure an article like this was at least linked by the circumstitions website - I must've seen it somewhere, and the guy behind that site is pretty quick to post news items like these. Or maybe I'd read something about when one of the three other states did this.

Imagine that, hospitals prioritizing their services toward providing necessary services… I wonder if this thought ever occurred in US hospitals that circumcise.

EDIT: wait, I went back and did more than a 30 second search. I knew I wasn't making things up:
http://www.foreskin-restoration.net/forum/showthread.php?t=587

[admin]

No state in Australia still permits non-therapeutic circumcisions in the public hospitals. It is separately banned from public hospitals in Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Northern Teritory, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, and Western Australia.

The infant cutting rates in New South Wales and Queensland remain above 10% due to active selling of the procedure by private providers.

[Dasher]

Thanks for the update that all Australian states now forbid non-therapeutic circumcisions in public hospitals. I was wondering about that.

Also I apologize for posting a story you already carried. I couldn't find it; next time I will try harder.

[Yunus]

This is the source link :
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/victoria-to-scrap-public-hospital-circumcision/2007/08/12/1186857323447.html

[Someone mundane]

Being from Australia, (I presume) I'm honestly curious about what Aussiebloke would have to say regarding this. In a non-confrontational manner of course.

[Aussiebloke]

Being from Australia, (I presume) I'm honestly curious about what Aussiebloke would have to say regarding this. In a non-confrontational manner of course.

Thanks for asking for my input.

It's nothing new to me. It's been like that for awhile. Not really a big deal, except that you have to pay about $150 for a doc to do it. Medicare give a rebate, so you get some of that back.

[Someone mundane]

Thanks for asking for my input.

It's nothing new to me. It's been like that for awhile. Not really a big deal, except that you have to pay about $150 for a doc to do it. Medicare give a rebate, so you get some of that back.

Figured as much. :rolleyes: Between my apathy and contempt, I have no further comment that would be appropriate.

EDIT: Besides saying it's a shame that even in regions which could be considered significantly better than the US/CA when it comes to genital cutting, there are still the occasional few that disobey all reason...

Here's a question:

Which form of suffering do you view as being worse?

A: A person who was not cut at birth, but has some manner of issue with his foreskin. Entirely resolvable however, with conservative stretching or the more direct means of circumcision. Experiencing this in the first place and having to go through fixing it may be considerably painful/annoying/frustrating/whatever, may be detrimental to his sex life before it is addressed, and might leave him slightly more open to an infection, but when all is said and done, at least he can look forward to a life with the absence of his problems and be content that it was his choice. At no cost even if he just takes the path of stretching it loose over time. If he can grin and bear enduring the discomfort for a while longer, rather than opting for immediate resolution of the problem. (circ)

B: A person who was cut at birth, but absolutely hates this fact. There is little that he can do about it. While foreskin restoration is possible to an extent, he is still left with a scar and the original is gone. He also has no way to know how he would have been. Or if he has lost a significant amount of his frenulum. May suffer horrible depression and experience relapses, (as members of this forum indicate both) may have many psychological issues, (resentment towards parents/doctors, envy at other natural men, feeling hopeless at society, extremely withdrawn or disinterested in sexual encounters, etc) may have complications you cannot predict that only develop later in life during puberty when the organ grows, such as insufficient skin, (so much so one member said his testicles were dragged up his shaft) too much hair drawn up the shaft, penoscrotal webbing, an uneven cosmetic result, a cracked or pitted glans, a piece of the glans missing, (connected by a membrane that has to be ripped apart, it's possible to take a small chunk away with the foreskin, one member had that problem) skin tag, skin bridge, adhesions, etc. If the individual is affected by one of these on top of already disliking the fact they were cut, it may lead to even worse depression. They are forced to swallow these facts, and live that way for the rest of their life, even if they are unhappy with it. Unless they choose to restore of course, but as stated before, the original which shouldn't have been removed in their case is gone and they may still have the physical deformity artifacts of their circumcision that they likely wouldn't have otherwise.

Tried to write it without a slant, but there is a lot of potential problems to represent on our side that you don't often see discussed. As many if not more than leaving it the way it is at birth. Plus, I'm not going to pretend to be neutral. You know where I and the majority of the members on this forum stand. We're confident in our position. If it bothers you, I'm certain you could fill in anything I missed at group A anyways. Regardless, I await your answer. If you answer.

[Aussiebloke]

If it bothers you, I'm certain you could fill in anything I missed at group A anyways. Regardless, I await your answer. If you answer.

It doesn't bother me. I see where you are coming from. Obviously, B is worse.

But when forming a risk analysis, you have to look at two aspects. The likelihood, and the consequence.

Obviously, in your two examples, option B has the worse consequence. But in my opinion, is also extremely unlikely. I understand that this particular forum is full of people that fit into this category. But in the big scheme of things, the actual numbers are very few. So low, that I have never met anyone who has had these feelings in real life.

Option A is in my opinion is more likely to occur. This is due to my own circumstances and the people who I know (I have met several people who have had these problems).

Putting the two together (again, my opinion).

Option A - Low/Medium likelihood - Low/medium consequence = Low/medium risk
Option B - Extremely low likelihood - high consequence = Low risk

I know that you won't agree with me, and I don't expect you to. We all make different decisions based on our own research and perceptions. I would not question a parent who chooses not to as I understand that we are not all the same.

[Joseph]

A and B really can't be compared.

Group A is a minority of men that happened to develop problems with their penises.

Group B is a majority of men, of which only a very small percentage would ever develop problems, which could mostly be taken care of by conventional means without surgery, and fewer than that that would actually ever need surgical intervention. You are probably right that a lot of these men would "get over" their circumcisions, but this is besides the point. The fact is that their organs were permanently disfigured for life, to prevent a condition they would most likely never ever get, and if they got, could have been taken care of. Men that are angry have every reason to be, as their human rights were violated by otherwise enlightened individuals.

You can't say that you have never met men that were angry about their circumcisions; not if you're in here browsing people's posts. Also, keep in mind that most men that are angry wouldn't walk up to you and tell you; they don't want to be told by YOU that they should get over it. The fact is men are hushed and told to suck it up, so, most do, if they don't want to be ridiculed. ('Till now.)

What parents think is irrelevant, as a doctor has no business performing medically unnecessary surgery on healthy, non-consenting children, much less pretending like they could give parents a "choice." Doctors that perform circumcisions on said children are committing medical fraud.

*EDIT* A certain percentage of group B would also be (quietly) struggling through life with some of the following, though they may not acknowledge it:

http://www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched1sb.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched3sc.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched4ga.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched5va.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched2st.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched6un.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched7ex.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched8ma.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/ReasonsNotto.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html

*EDIT:* Also, as long as we're talking about our friends, I have a few friends, online and in person, who have UTIs caused by their circumcisions. One of my friends has a scar that constricts his urethra, giving him urine retention problems. He suffers constant UTIs and has to be taking anti-biotics for them. He's given up alchohol and is even trying to go vegan in hopes that the UTIs can go away. Doctors don't want to operate on him because they're afraid they'll leave him with a less-than-functioning organ, so, until he can find one that will, he's stuck with battling UTIs. It's so ironic that he was circumcised to "prevent" problems, esp. problems such as UTI. I'd like to get all of my friends cases and print them out so I can staple them to Thomas Wiswell's head...

[Someone mundane]

It doesn't bother me. I see where you are coming from. Obviously, B is worse.

But when forming a risk analysis, you have to look at two aspects. The likelihood, and the consequence.

Obviously, in your two examples, option B has the worse consequence. But in my opinion, is also extremely unlikely. I understand that this particular forum is full of people that fit into this category. But in the big scheme of things, the actual numbers are very few. So low, that I have never met anyone who has had these feelings in real life.

Option A is in my opinion is more likely to occur. This is due to my own circumstances and the people who I know (I have met several people who have had these problems).

Putting the two together (again, my opinion).

Option A - Low/Medium likelihood - Low/medium consequence = Low/medium risk
Option B - Extremely low likelihood - high consequence = Low risk

I know that you won't agree with me, and I don't expect you to. We all make different decisions based on our own research and perceptions. I would not question a parent who chooses not to as I understand that we are not all the same.

Still, I cannot understand why; in light of the potential for damages even worse than leaving it alone, that some people would opt for it anyway... And let me clarify something here; I am only talking about circumcising an infant. I could care less about what grown people do to their own bodies with consent unless it is something genuinely bordering on unhealthy and detrimental. To me, while the former issue can make some degree of sense, (supposing it protects against some early things in life, sparing maybe a UTI or infection or two) it just doesn't make enough sense to be a reasonable decision under most any category unless there isn't any other good option. Practically every medical organization agrees on this point even though they often brand it an "elective" choice, ironically ignoring how it almost always isn't for the one being circumcised. For a long time to come, an infant is not even sexually aware or active. Neither is a child usually until an age where any physical problem prior to that could have been taken care of conservatively if the parent is involved enough. You should be teaching safe practices to your offspring anyway when they come of age, but no doubt you have heard all these arguments before?

Personally speaking, if there is the potential for damages even greater than what it is supposed to protect against, while what it protects against is already not guaranteed to happen by any means and is a relatively low risk, I'd probably avoid it. Here is something else for you to ponder: did it ever occur to you that because more men in your area are intact, by correlation you'd naturally run into foreskin related problems more frequently? This is not even related to the foreskin itself, but simply the demographics of your countries population. With a greater quantity of foreskins, you'd have greater chances of something going wrong with them. Conversely, there are also less men circumcised over there as well. Over here in the US, you have a LOT of circumcised men, and (perhaps, BIG guess here but I was, and it's close to the states) in Canada, you probably have more men that were cut as well. So is it any wonder that you've experienced those circumstances? Add all of this onto the fact that it is generally easier to talk about these things over the web, when in real life... Plenty of times I've told people that "nothing is wrong" when it's a lie. This is a very personal matter, I wouldn't expect it to be the very first thing you hear out of people without carefully talking them into releasing it, unless it's their political aim. Joseph made a similar point below and it is a good one. Can you honestly tell me that you haven't told a "white lie" before? Or that you've never once had a brief glancing thought about what a healthy foreskin would be like to possess for that matter? I understand it's obviously nowhere near as important to you as it is for me, but just for curiosities sake.

Regardless, however small the numbers may be in the big scheme of things as you've put it, (falling in line, since more men worldwide are intact, there are also less circumcised men to complain about things that the other group in their demographic just shrugs over and accepts) they clearly aren't small enough if there are not one, but several organizations opposed to the practice, books written against it along with political activism, and support groups centered around men that are aggrieved by this loss. To me, that's big enough to give serious credence to their existence, and it is my woe as well. In that, you can honestly say that you have met somebody who was offended that he was circumcised at birth and angered by the fact. Even if you've never seen my face. You could say the same thing for every other member of this website that is. Again, Joseph made this point too. My own family did not even expect it. By extension, everybody that I will ever interact with in my life when the issue comes up, will be affected to a greater or lesser degree by my circumcision when I tell them that I am not happy about it and wish it had never been done. It cannot be said that it affects only me (although I admit it does affect me the most) when my parents have admitted that they feel guilt that they ever did it. And of course, incoming sarcasm here, the best part is that they have been helpless to do anything about it other than stand there and watch me cry or break down over it when the stress of it got to be too much. The best suggestion through their helplessness that I have seen my family make, is that I should see some form of council. But really, I am already intelligent enough to know that I cannot dwell upon it, but it does not change the fact that I am angry and saddened. What magical words would a therapist have to say that I couldn't already tell myself by basic common sense? And I definitely don't want to be on the antidepressants of some psychiatrist or any other mood-boosting drug they offer... When the side effects aren't that much better than my circumcision in the first place. I'd love to sue as well, but thanks to vague birth records that will probably never happen... But, there have been lawsuits even if I can't do it myself. Whether it concerns you or not, you can rest assured that I do think about it, though.

Let me say that I don't expect you to agree with me either; but I do expect that you would at least reconsider and re-evaluate your positions as you attain more knowledge and meet new people and learn more of their lives; that is after all what allows a human being to grow and mature, mentally anyway. I've thought about the benefits circ could have, I've tried to believe it may have some merit but I just don't see anything big enough... And I haven't even touched on the ethical problem, but I did hint at it above with tidbits of my life. that is the entire crux of our argument really. The same reason why you would never do anything of the sort to a female. I'm earnestly clueless why it's not the same for males. Just as Joseph said, again... Most other things are irrelevant to this. Although, if you want more of the former, his links are good. But be warned: Not for a weak stomach or safe for work. Compare some of the images of those and properly circumcised penises, to full grown healthy intact ones... There is no comparison in my opinion.

My apologies for going off on a personal tirade there at the end, but I didn't mind writing it. Venting for people like us, (in exclusion of you since you say you don't mind) is also a part of what this forum is for.

[finman]

where doctors determine there is a need because of concerns over infections or disease

A healthy newborn baby - what infections or diseases? They are more likely to be caused by this procedure, and surgery for a urinary infection? What will they do to the girls then? Girls get antibiotics, a boy gets his penis mutilated.

...Medicare give a rebate, so you get some of that back

Yes, care for medic's bank balances

While recent studies of African countries suggested

Will we never get past this ridiculous, faked 'research'?

[Joseph]

OK.

I am warning you, Aussiebloke, you are being a troll.

One last time.

Quit it, or you are gone for 3 days.

[finman]

Aussiebloke, don't be a trollop either :eek:

Trollop. It means one who engages in risky activity, casual sex, and promiscuity, then gives you a sexually transmitted disease for loving them. A trollop (or trollup) is usually a fat dumb person who acts really gay and camp - from the Urban dictionary :p

[Someone mundane]

OK.

I am warning you, Aussiebloke, you are being a troll.

One last time.

Quit it, or you are gone for 3 days.

Did he post something that I missed?

[AC_Tech85]

Aussiebloke's post probably was deleted.

I don't know if the rest of the world is keen on taking up Australian ideas over circ if they can't get it right with pornography censorship. I just learned that they have recently banned small breasts in porn. I know that's off topic, but that could hurt credibility. Not that America listens to any other country but itself anyway though.