View Full Version : Vic follows NSW in banning hospital circumcisions
serendipity22
12-08-2007, 11:50
Social circumcisions will now be banned in both NSW and Vic.
Suellen Hinde and Kelvin Healey
August 12, 2007 12:00am
CIRCUMCISION will be banned in Victorian public hospitals unless it is for medical reasons.
The State Government has ordered the ban, which starts next month, following medical advice that circumcision of baby boys was unnecessary.
Health Minister Daniel Andrews said circumcisions would be performed only when doctors were concerned about infection or disease.
"Nationally and overseas, doctors agree there is no medical benefit to routine circumcision, and studies show the complication rate is about 5 per cent," Mr Andrews said.
The $2 million a year saved by the ban will be spent on urgent elective surgery.
"It is important to ensure hospital services are prioritised towards treating patients who have a clinical need for surgery to improve their health," Mr Andrews said.
Ministerial Advisory Committee on Elective Surgery chairman Prof Michael Grigg said it was hard to justify spending taxpayers' money on routine circumcision.
"We should be spending relatively scarce health dollars as effectively as we can to benefit the maximum number of people," he said.
Prof Grigg said circumcision had marginal health benefits for some people, but also had a risk of complication.
About 2200 circumcisions were performed by Victorian public hospitals in the 2005-06 financial year.
Parents who want to have their sons circumcised for religious reasons will have to use a private hospital.
Does anyone know if they are banned in any other state?
our little treasures
12-08-2007, 11:53
Personally I think that is great and good that the money saved will be spent on more urgent issues!!:yelclap:
mysweetpea
12-08-2007, 12:34
i think that's a fantastic idea.
and that's all i'm going to say ...
Ange&Seth
12-08-2007, 12:45
i think that's a fantastic idea.
and that's all i'm going to say ...
Everyone's entitled to their opinion Chic, it's just the way that it gets delivered that is occasionally a problem. Not you specifically, but in general.
I'm not sure if it's actually banned in Tasmania, but you can't get it done there. I think it's just that no doctors in Tassie will perform it. Families have had to go to Melbourne, and they have to have counselling sessions and then come back at another time for the actual procedure.
I think it's good that the money is being put back into the health system. We'll wait and see if it actually IS put back though :rolleyes:
OP - I was wondering where you found that info? I'd like to have a read of it and do some more research.
secondtimearound2
12-08-2007, 14:35
Everyone's entitled to their opinion Chic, it's just the way that it gets delivered that is occasionally a problem. Not you specifically, but in general.
I'm not sure if it's actually banned in Tasmania, but you can't get it done there. I think it's just that no doctors in Tassie will perform it. Families have had to go to Melbourne, and they have to have counselling sessions and then come back at another time for the actual procedure.
I think it's good that the money is being put back into the health system. We'll wait and see if it actually IS put back though :rolleyes:
OP - I was wondering where you found that info? I'd like to have a read of it and do some more research.
You still can get it done in Tassie................Dr Jenkins on NW coast will do it after 1 yr old!!
Ange&Seth
12-08-2007, 14:37
You still can get it done in Tassie................Dr Jenkins on NW coast will do it after 1 yr old!!
Really? That's where my brother is. :detective: Maybe they just wanted it done while bub was small.
Sorry for the misinformation :o
secondtimearound2
12-08-2007, 14:42
That's fine Hun..................I only know cause my sister has had both her boys done. The oldest was 4 weeks old (he is now 5) the youngest 15 months (he is now just over 2) Dr Jenkins will only do over 1 yr old now.............something to do with pain relief I believe
Ange&Seth
12-08-2007, 14:43
CIRCUMCISION will be banned in Victorian public hospitals unless it is for medical reasons.
So it can still be done in a private practice?
tyler's mum
12-08-2007, 14:47
I disagree i dont think it should be banned. Every parent should be able. To have a choice if they want it done. If i had a son i would get him done.
Just my opinion
secondtimearound2
12-08-2007, 14:51
You will still be able to..................just not in a public hospital. I wonder if the Frankston hospital is one of them?? Apparantly they USED to do hundred of babys/boys/men a week!!!
OscarTheGrouch
12-08-2007, 15:02
I disagree i dont think it should be banned. Every parent should be able. To have a choice if they want it done. If i had a son i would get him done.
Just my opinion
I agree. Are we then going to stop elective c-section, bypass surgery for smokers & overweight people, liver transplants for ex-iv drug users and alcoholics.... the list goes on. There are many operations and procedures in the public health system that many consider to be 'a waste of money', but they happen.
stellarella
12-08-2007, 15:07
The surgeries you mentioned are very different to RIC.
The surgeries you mentioned are life saving, whereas RIC is not.
However you are opening up a whole kettle of fish. :detective:
Admittedly I didn't read the article but I know that at least one of the reasons it was banned in NSW is because it is considered cosmetic surgery and it was decided that it shopuld be being done with a general anaesthetic and unless it's required babies under 1 year old aren't given anaesthetic as a rule.
We were told that in our ante-natal class with DD1 by the educator. Maybe Vic is thinking along the same lines as well?
Either way, I thought it was banned in public hospitals in Aus altogether. I wish it was.
allysophia
12-08-2007, 16:09
I agree. Are we then going to stop elective c-section, bypass surgery for smokers & overweight people, liver transplants for ex-iv drug users and alcoholics.... the list goes on. There are many operations and procedures in the public health system that many consider to be 'a waste of money', but they happen.
Good point! Thats why hospitals in the public sector are saying "no" to elec c/s.
As for those other procedures they are life saving, and completely different.
Milliner
12-08-2007, 16:13
Great idea, you can't go to a public hostpital and get a "boob job". If you want cosmetic surgery then you should have to pay for it.
OscarTheGrouch
12-08-2007, 16:46
The surgeries you mentioned are very different to RIC.
The surgeries you mentioned are life saving, whereas RIC is not.
However you are opening up a whole kettle of fish. :detective:
An elective c-section is life saving?
OscarTheGrouch
12-08-2007, 16:48
Great idea, you can't go to a public hostpital and get a "boob job". If you want cosmetic surgery then you should have to pay for it.
In some cases you can get boob reductions through Medicare and the public health system.
allysophia
12-08-2007, 16:54
An elective c-section is life saving?
Well, elective c/s aren't offered at hospitals :)
allysophia
12-08-2007, 16:56
Great idea, you can't go to a public hostpital and get a "boob job". If you want cosmetic surgery then you should have to pay for it.
Free boob jobs for all!! :yelclap:
Breast reductions don't seem so cosmetic. For instance, if I had an enlarged head, and it was causing me discomfort, I'd expect the govt to help foot the bill :D
Wonderful news! Some sanity coming out of the health system!!:thumbsup:
Blueberry Crumble
12-08-2007, 17:18
Wonderful news! Some sanity coming out of the health system!!:thumbsup:
I agree. Hopefully it will be banned completely eventually:thumbsup:
serendipity22
12-08-2007, 19:41
Since i saw the article, I have found out public hospital social circs are already barred in WA and Tassie, as well as NSW and Vic.
pinkishbunny
12-08-2007, 19:46
:yelclap: That's Good!!!
Ange&Seth
12-08-2007, 20:53
Well, elective c/s aren't offered at hospitals :)
Really? Where are they done then if not at hospitals?
Really? Where are they done then if not at hospitals?
Perhaps not public hospitals, private ones only?
RedPanda
12-08-2007, 21:07
I think it's fair enough. It's a cosmetic procedure, and as such, it shouldn't be funded by the public system. If people want their baby circ'ed, they should have to pay to get it done privately, as all other cosmetic surgery patients have to.
Obviously circumcision for medical reasons is an exception, as there is a medical need for the child to undergo the procedure.
Ange&Seth
12-08-2007, 21:19
It's a cosmetic procedure, and as such, it shouldn't be funded by the public system.
Totally agree - it's like someone expecting ME to help pay for their nose job or their liposuction - LOL NO WAY :no:
When I had DS in the public hospital here in '05, I was told 'we don't do elective caesar's, so don't ask. We don't do circumcisions, so don't ask.' So is this a new decision to not perform these procedures in public hospitals? Or is it old news that's only just being reported? Up until now, was it just that the hospital in my area had made the decision?
The public system is meant to be there to support the people who can't afford private care. Why should we as tax payers have to fund elective cosmetic procedures?
While I believe that it should be a choice available to parents, should they choose TO circ, I shouldn't have to pay for it.
secondtimearound2
12-08-2007, 21:42
2200 isn't a big stat
Most people have the procedure done through a doctor who specialises in circumcision...........and they usually have their own licenced premises. IMO I also think it would be a lot safer to leave it up to the specialist's do it.
allysophia
12-08-2007, 22:21
I guess its fair enough, unless for medical reasons. But its not hard to go to a dr. and get a referal to get it done. What about the people that have it done for religious reasons? And what about places that only have public health avaliable? It still should be a parents choice. JMO but!
Well, this article isn't saying it shouldnt be the parents choice (thats another debate altogether!) just simply that they won't fund this cosmetic procedure.
For religious reasons I require bigger boobs (I wish!)
allysophia
12-08-2007, 22:23
Really? Where are they done then if not at hospitals?
Remember that whole new debate - about how public hospitals weren't giving elec c/s anymore, you have to have medical reasons..
Ange&Seth
12-08-2007, 22:26
Remember that whole new debate - about how public hospitals weren't giving elec c/s anymore, you have to have medical reasons..
Yeah I knew that one, that they weren't doing it in public, but the post I quoted stated that elective c/s wasn't being done in hospitals.
i dont have an opinion either way on weather circumcision or not but as for banning it in public hospitals, i dont think it is a good idea as i would hate to here of back yard jods being done at least in a hospital its far safer
allysophia
12-08-2007, 22:45
But the thing is (and again, another debate all together!!) that we dont have it done just for cosmetic purposes...
I do agree with secondtimeround but too about the leaving it for the professionals. I know the surgions in public hospitals are professionals, but we felt better having it done by someone who has done this and not much else for 40 odd years...
This is a big thing for people who are anti-circ then, because hospitals are saying they believe the procedure is "cosmetic." Unless there is an underlying medical reasons, hospitals think its cosmetic. Thats a big thing.
Ange&Seth
12-08-2007, 22:55
hospitals think its cosmetic. Thats a big thing.
yeah it is a big thing. This might make people more aware of the fact that it's not really necessary, but I still think they should have the choice.
And as for backyard botch jobs - THAT would be criminal and I doubt it would happen.
Ange&Seth
12-08-2007, 23:03
I know this isn't circ related as I refuse to discuss that now.
But, if we had to pay for DD's elective spinal cord surgery she wouldn't have been able to get it. We can't afford private care, does that mean that she should put up with not being able to move properly? And yeah, it was an elective surgery.
I understand about tax payers $$ and all, but if you take it to Private only, basically, the "lower class" have been pushed to the side yet again. We can't have these procedures because we aren't wealthy enough to be able to get Private cover AND pay for the procedure as well!!
Just out of curiosity though, where CAN you go in NSW apart from Private to get a circ done without losing the roof over your head, or your car, or going without food for a month? Fair enough for the "middle" or "upper" class, but just because we're "lower" class doesn't mean that we should have to miss out.
I'm not talking about ALL elective surgery chic, I'm talking about elective cosmetic surgery. That's what the thread is about - that hospitals are now recognising circ's as being a cosmetic procedure and not medically necessary. But I'd like to know why your daughters surgery was classed as elective?
ETA - just re-read my post and I realise now that I said 'elective procedures' and not 'elective cosmetic procedures'. Sorry about that! I'm heading over to fix it up now, so that it says what I mean
allysophia
12-08-2007, 23:04
I know this isn't circ related as I refuse to discuss that now.
But, if we had to pay for DD's elective spinal cord surgery she wouldn't have been able to get it. We can't afford private care, does that mean that she should put up with not being able to move properly? And yeah, it was an elective surgery.
I understand about tax payers $$ and all, but if you take it to Private only, basically, the "lower class" have been pushed to the side yet again. We can't have these procedures because we aren't wealthy enough to be able to get Private cover AND pay for the procedure as well!!
Just out of curiosity though, where CAN you go in NSW apart from Private to get a circ done without losing the roof over your head, or your car, or going without food for a month? Fair enough for the "middle" or "upper" class, but just because we're "lower" class doesn't mean that we should have to miss out.
Another Question... Why do they have a problem using anesthetic for circs under 1yr old? A local would cover the area. Gee, DD had a general at 1 week - well 6 days actually. Again at 4 months and then again at 9 months when she had elective surgery to cut through her spine.
Wha? Elective spinal cord surgery? Did you get her spine altered for purely cosmetic reasons? Did you alter a normal, functioning and intact spine for non-medical reasons? Thats what this discussions about, not about preventing necessary medical intervention.
If her spine was working & intact, and they altered it for cosmetic reasons, I'd be against it being tax payer funded, but otherwise, I'll pay up, happily!
Ange&Seth
12-08-2007, 23:10
I'm not overly sure why either, not urgent I guess, the letter from her neurosurgeon said he recommended she go for elective surgery to free her spinal cord...
But, still, on the topic, so they've classed circ as cosmetic now. I guess we won't be able to have any son of ours circ'd then as we could never afford to pay for it, being "lower" classed (the OLD middle classed) the $$ is too tight before surgeries and something we believe in - not for cosmetic reasons. I won't go any further with it and all the pro-circs would know why.
I don't believe social class has anything to do with it. There are GPs who can perform the procedure and you don't have to pay the exorbitant price for surgeons.
But then again, that comes back to you having a choice, which is a whole other thread.
RedPanda
12-08-2007, 23:12
I don't think it would be that expensive privately Widget. I know people who have had it done at doctors surgeries for just a few hundred dollars.
mayzie82
13-08-2007, 07:29
we had to ring numerous drs to find a dr to do circumcision though a friend of ours had his little miss with a huge strawberry over her face and was able to claim lightening on a 3 yr old on medicare ( not to cause a big debate) but what is the difference between cutting for circs than lightning strawberry on face they are both in ess a comsmetic procedure but neither are ness wrong they are both choices made by parents but what impact on the kids later in life MAYBE? as circumcision is classed as atype of elective surgery it would be great to hear of others in the other sorts....straws etc maybe a new thread?
:wave:
stellarella
13-08-2007, 08:14
The term 'elective' is used innacurately IMO.
We know that some c/secs are termed elective even when they are clearly required. For example if a c/sec is required because of placeta previa it is called an elective c/sec even though the mother and baby would both die by attempting a VB.
My nan needed a hip replacement, both her hips were destroyed but the surgery is termed 'elective'.
So in Widgets case her little girl obviously needed the surgery however they stupidly term it elective.
ETA: Just thought of anothyer example. DP had a serious car accident which wasnt even his fault and when they put his leg back together his foot wasnt on straight however the surgery he had to correct it was termed elective.
twolittlegirls
13-08-2007, 10:26
In the town where I live, to circumcise is still very common. It is still offered here, with pretty much no question asked.
When we had a first bub, I was all for circ. If DD was a boy, I wouldn't have even questioned it. Before I had DD2, I found Bub Hub. I now realise that it really isn't something that has to be done. When we found out DD2 was a girl, I felt so relived. I think I now have DH convinced, so if we were to have another baby I wouldn't have to argue to much! Its just his family we would have to deal with!
pookiesossige
13-08-2007, 10:43
Soooo happy to see that article...
Hoo-RAY.
That's a lot of little babies saved from a custom that is unnecessary unless required for medical reasons. (note- unless required for medical reasons). Did I mention that it's ok if required for medical reasons? Glad to see that most of Australia now feel the same way :yes:
mayzie82
13-08-2007, 12:32
[quote=Ange&Seth;1788900]Totally agree - it's like someone expecting ME to help pay for their nose job or their liposuction - LOL NO WAY :no:
When I had DS in the public hospital here in '05, I was told 'we don't do elective caesar's, so don't ask. We don't do circumcisions, so don't ask.
why would they offer it even if was free to you the less people taking the option the less is costs the public health system im sure if you did ask then they would be obligated as when my boys were done it was totally covered both in vic and nsw maybe its a case of what you dont know they dont pay for????:)
Ange&Seth
13-08-2007, 13:11
why would they offer it even if was free to you the less people taking the option the less is costs the public health system im sure if you did ask then they would be obligated as when my boys were done it was totally covered both in vic and nsw maybe its a case of what you dont know they dont pay for????:)
Nope, that's not it - though I see your point:thumbsup:
mayzie82
13-08-2007, 14:47
lol ange
it is always a point of playing devils advocate and second guessing anything and everything these days:wave:
i get your point too hehe:laughing:
circangel
13-08-2007, 17:01
I take it they are banning circumcision in public hospitals but is it fair to allow older boys to develop problems including painful infections that will require medical and possibly surgical intervention later and at a stage when more complications could arise? And just why they think it is un-necessary when there have been news reports stating it (circumcision needs to be done to prevent millions from catching HIV) and without a roll out phase I am not sure.
Ange&Seth
13-08-2007, 17:55
While I agree with you trying to provide people with doctors names who perform the procedure, I think you should specify that
And just why they think it is un-necessary when there have been news reports stating it (circumcision needs to be done to prevent millions from catching HIV)
is concentrated in Africa ie third world countries - not the world over.
Education over Intimidation :thumbsup: It seems it is possible for both pro-circ and anti-circ to be guilty of not following this.
Milliner
13-08-2007, 18:12
I take it they are banning circumcision in public hospitals but is it fair to allow older boys to develop problems including painful infections that will require medical and possibly surgical intervention later and at a stage when more complications could arise? And just why they think it is un-necessary when there have been news reports stating it (circumcision needs to be done to prevent millions from catching HIV) and without a roll out phase I am not sure.
Education is the key. :yes:
Teach boys to clean themselves.
Educate people on safe sex.
Or are these things to difficult, can’t be bothered let’s just remove the foreskin.
We are in Australia, not Africa.
Why should one cosmetic surgery be available in a public hospital but other's are not??
What about the fact that people may not clean their teeth properly and there for develop problems for E.G cavities that require extended and frequent visits to the dentist, that can cause a great deal of pain and discomfort too. Do we just remove the teeth now, just in case problems develop later in life? I think not.
Blueberry Crumble
13-08-2007, 19:33
Education is the key. :yes:
Teach boys to clean themselves.
Educate people on safe sex.
Or are these things to difficult, can’t be bothered let’s just remove the foreskin.
We are in Australia, not Africa.
Why should one cosmetic surgery be available in a public hospital but other's are not??
What about the fact that people may not clean their teeth properly and there for develop problems for E.G cavities that require extended and frequent visits to the dentist, that can cause a great deal of pain and discomfort too. Do we just remove the teeth now, just in case problems develop later in life? I think not.
I agree. What a bizarre idea:confused: To remove a part of your body just incase of infection?! Why not start removing all babies appendixes at birth- then they wont haveto worry about getting appendicitis later in life.
Odd idea.
Ange&Seth
14-08-2007, 00:17
I agree. What a bizarre idea:confused: To remove a part of your body just incase of infection?! Why not start removing all babies appendixes at birth- then they wont haveto worry about getting appendicitis later in life.
Odd idea.
Yes it is an odd idea - one that has been raised frequently before now.
And as for the teeth question - no we don't remove teeth 'just in case', we teach kids to look after them so they DON'T have to be removed.
This is why I stress the following - Education over Intimidation.
circangel
14-08-2007, 09:05
I believe that the news report was from an Australian Dr and the report was in a Sydney news paper. Can anyone confirm if this is true or not. As I see it circumcision is going to make a comeback. It is important to realise this possibility if not inevitability.
Milliner
14-08-2007, 09:14
It's not a fashion statement.
As I see it circumcision is going to make a comeback. It is important to realise this possibility if not inevitability.
Really? How interesting. I don't think its important to realise that at all.
I don't think circumcision will ever make a comeback. Once its gone it will be gone for good. Like a lot of other rituals have done.
PunkyDiva
14-08-2007, 09:35
Social circumcisions will now be banned in both NSW and Vic.
:smiliedance: Yeah !!
Blueberry Crumble
14-08-2007, 10:20
As I see it circumcision is going to make a comeback. It is important to realise this possibility if not inevitability.
:laughing:
WHY would it make a comeback??? Please inform us as to why you believe that more people are going to choose to circumcise their children for reasons other than medical need?
Lets teach our boys to clean themselves properly. That is the BEST option.
stellarella
14-08-2007, 10:27
I believe that the news report was from an Australian Dr and the report was in a Sydney news paper. Can anyone confirm if this is true or not. As I see it circumcision is going to make a comeback. It is important to realise this possibility if not inevitability.
Well if we consider the figures along with public opinion I would actually say the opposite is true.
It will soon be obsolete.
Thank goodness for our little boys.
Ange&Seth
14-08-2007, 10:38
It has actually gone in and out of trend for the past few decades - so it IS possible that it may become the norm again.
In this life - there are nothing but possibilities.
Milliner
14-08-2007, 10:49
Actually studies say something different.
The routine circumcision of baby boys within days of the birth progressively became more popular in certain western countries including the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK after the 1940's. By the 1970's up to 90% of male babies were routinely circumcised in these countries. The reasons for the rapid acceptance of male circumcision in these countries is not really known. One Australian Obstetrician, Dr Derek Llewellyn-Jones wrote in his book 'Everywoman' that "It is said that mothers demand it, doctors profit by it, and babies cannot complain about it". So perhaps the synergy of these attitudes encouraged it as a popular western custom.
Routine circumcision trends started to reverse in these countries in the mid-1970's. The tide turned after the American Academy of Paediatrics' Committee for the Newborn released a statement in 1971 advocating that there were "no valid medical reasons for routine circumcision". Since then, other professional medical bodies in the Australia, Canada, and the UK have followed suit and the practice progressively started to be discouraged in these countries. It became increasingly harder for parents to find someone who was willing to carry out the procedure.
By the mid 1990's the circumcision rate had declined to about 15% in Australia, 60% in the USA, 20% in Canada and less than 5% in the UK. It is currently about 10% in Australia. Today, routine circumcision of baby boys is still a claimable item on the health schemes of the USA and Australia, but no longer in the UK and parts of Canada.
Milliner
14-08-2007, 10:50
Circumcision in Australia
In Australia, the average circumcision rate for boys tends to be about 10%. In 2002, there were 19,054 boys circumcised, from statistics obtained through the Australian Health Insurance Commission (HIC) about the number of circumcisions claimed on Medicare. Of these, about 15,000 were performed before the child was 6 months old. About 3,000 were done between 6 months and 5 years, and about 1,000 were done between 5 and 14 years of age.
The following stastics are the rates of circumcision for each state in Australia for 2002:
2002
NSW 17.7%
VIC 8.0%
SA 14.7%
ACT 7.3%
WA 7.6%
QLD 21.7%
TAS 10.7%
NT 7.9%
Blueberry Crumble
14-08-2007, 10:52
so it IS possible that it may become the norm again.
How would it be possible?:confused:
Ange&Seth
14-08-2007, 10:56
How would it be possible?:confused:
See my previous post. Anything is possible. I'm not saying it SHOULD become the 'done thing' again, only that it is entirely possible that it COULD be.
It has actually gone in and out of trend for the past few decades - so it IS possible that it may become the norm again.
In this life - there are nothing but possibilities.
Blueberry Crumble
14-08-2007, 11:52
ITs interesting the different stats between countries...
Do we have any current figures? I cant find any. These are 10 years ago.
I found this table (2002) for Australia... not sure if it the same as above. Cant find any stats for world wide atm.
http://www.birth.com.au/class.asp?class=6806&page=8#
Milliner
14-08-2007, 11:56
America
Figures from the 2003 Nationwide Hospital Discharge Survey state that circumcision rates declined from 64.7% in 1980 to 59.0% in 1990, rose to 64.1% in 1995, and fell again to 55.9% in 2003.[11] On page 52, it is shown that the western region of the United States has seen the most significant change, declining from 61.8% in 1980 to 31.4% in 2003.[11] The decline in the western region has been partly attributed to increasing births among Latin Americans, who usually do not circumcise.[12]
UK
A national survey in 2003 found that 15.8% of men in the United Kingdom (ages 16-44) were circumcised.[20] 11.7% of 16-19 year olds, and 19.6% of 40-44 year olds said they had been circumcised. Rickwood et al reported that the proportion of English boys circumcised for medical reasons had fallen from 35% in the early 1930s to 6.5% by the mid-1980s. An estimated 3.8% of male children in the UK in 2000 were being circumcised by the age of 15.[21]
Australia
A survey of Australian men, conducted in 2001-2002, reported that 58.7% were circumcised.[24]
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the infant circumcision rate in Australia was 12.9% as of 2003. However, rates in the states varied, with highest rates in Queensland (19.3%), New South Wales (16.3%) and South Australia (14.3%), and the lowest in Tasmania (1.6%).[25
Blueberry Crumble
14-08-2007, 12:28
You know, I dont really think statistics should have anything to do with the decision to or not to. I mean, even of 95% of the population is done, I wouldnt do that to my son.
Ange&Seth
14-08-2007, 12:36
I mean, even of 95% of the population is done, I wouldnt do that to my son.
And that is your choice :thumbsup:
Milliner
14-08-2007, 12:40
The stats show that more people are educating themselves, there is simple no need to circ.
Ange&Seth
14-08-2007, 13:08
The stats show that more people are educating themselves, there is simple no need to circ.
Yes, but all I'm pointing out is that the stats have shown in previous decades that more people were 'educating themselves' and the incidence of RIC was lowered. Then, it started climbing again because it was deemed 'necessary', then declined again.
Blueberry Crumble
14-08-2007, 13:08
I think thats great too, if thats your choice.
To me, stats were nothing as well.
I mean, you dont go and jump off a bridge if 70% of others have do you...
Its just interesting to read them.
Yes, thats what I meant:)
Milliner
14-08-2007, 13:12
I wouldn't say that 1-2% was dramatic enough to start a trend. Overall the numbers have decreased dramatically over the decades.
The stats reflect many more things than public attitude though. In Tassie for example there is no doctors that perform RIC's so you would need to go to the mainland to have it done. That is very expensive and a big intrusion on day to day family life. So not many people do it.
It would also vary with the population of Jewish or Muslim people in any given area too wouldn't it?
Ange&Seth
14-08-2007, 13:19
There are doctors in Tassie who perform the procedure, someone posted the name of one in one of these threads the other day - he's in the NW but won't perform the procedure before 1 year of age.
Milliner - I don't believe you understand the point I'm trying to make, so I guess we'll just need to agree to disagree on this point :D
secondtimearound2
14-08-2007, 15:05
The stats reflect many more things than public attitude though. In Tassie for example there is no doctors that perform RIC's so you would need to go to the mainland to have it done. That is very expensive and a big intrusion on day to day family life. So not many people do it.
It would also vary with the population of Jewish or Muslim people in any given area too wouldn't it?
Do you mean that you can NOT get a boy circumcised in TAS??
Interesting if thats what you mean cause both my nephews have been circumcised:confused:
You know, I dont really think statistics should have anything to do with the decision to or not to. I mean, even of 95% of the population is done, I wouldnt do that to my son.
Hmm, yeah. I see that, but on the other side of the coin - ONE of the (many) reasons we decided not to was that we didn't want him to be different from his little mates at school.
Not the main reason of course, but it was on the list of reasons.
I can't ever see circ becoming the norm again, and nothing to do with whether it is funded by the public health system or not. It seems to me that (for the most part) it is only men who are circ'd who choose to routinely circ their sons. Also, many men who are circ'd now choose to routinely leave their sons intact. As all these un-circ'd little boys grow into men, they will also choose to leave their sons intact in turn. That has to add up to an ever-increasing majority over time.
I don't think I can recall a single instance mentioned on these boards of a father who was not circ'd having his son done routinely. It would be very interesting to hear if there was anyone in that situation.
Cheers
Ange&Seth
15-08-2007, 13:25
I can't ever see circ becoming the norm again, and nothing to do with whether it is funded by the public health system or not. It seems to me that (for the most part) it is only men who are circ'd who choose to routinely circ their sons. Also, many men who are circ'd now choose to routinely leave their sons intact. As all these un-circ'd little boys grow into men, they will also choose to leave their sons intact in turn. That has to add up to an ever-increasing majority over time.
I don't think I can recall a single instance mentioned on these boards of a father who was not circ'd having his son done routinely. It would be very interesting to hear if there was anyone in that situation.
Cheers
:detective: Hmm, you make an excellent point! Well said :thumbsup:
I agree. Hopefully it will be banned completely eventually:thumbsup:
Yes of course banning has worked so well with all other issues i.e. drug use, abortion etc etc that it is just sure to work with circumcision!
Yes of course banning has worked so well with all other issues i.e. drug use, abortion etc etc that it is just sure to work with circumcision!
Please explain this comment in more depth. I am not quite sure what you are trying to say. Thanks.
Yes of course banning has worked so well with all other issues i.e. drug use, abortion etc etc that it is just sure to work with circumcision!
Certainly made a difference with regards to rates and acceptance of female circumcision.
Certainly made a difference with regards to rates and acceptance of female circumcision.
Of reported cases certainly. But then what were the rates in Australia prior to the change, how was the information gathered and collated?
Banning does not work and never has.
Of reported cases certainly. But then what were the rates in Australia prior to the change, how was the information gathered and collated?
Banning does not work and never has.
Banning makes the procedure questionable to the greater law abiding community. Banning gives a message that the procedure is not socially acceptable. Banning gives the message that it is not necessary. So on a whole heap of levels, yes, banning does work.
And as one of the major reasons people quote for getting their sons circumcised is so that they would look like their peers, banning would make that reason increasingly redundant.
Pippi Longstocking
16-08-2007, 07:35
And as one of the major reasons people quote for getting their sons circumcised is so that they would look like their peers, banning would make that reason increasingly redundant.
Exactly. Saying that "banning doesn't work" is ludicrous. If that were indeed the case, our society would be complete anarchy.
Obviously there will always be a few law-breakers but generally, most people obey laws. Suggesting that we may as well not have laws because of a small percentage of lawbreakers is a wee bit strange - most girls will now be protected from circumcision. Should we leave all of those girls unprotected just because a small minority choose not to obey the law? I don't think so!
Isnt it one of the main reasons people dont get it done, so they look like their peers?
Nope. As far as I can glean from most of the threads here and the people I've talked to, it's mostly because people don't see the need to perform such a procedure in this day and age. Aesthetics don't come into it.
Banning makes the procedure questionable to the greater law abiding community. Banning gives a message that the procedure is not socially acceptable. Banning gives the message that it is not necessary. So on a whole heap of levels, yes, banning does work.
And as one of the major reasons people quote for getting their sons circumcised is so that they would look like their peers, banning would make that reason increasingly redundant.
Unfortunately and to (IMO) the great discredit of this forum, there has been views expressed on this forum that (to paraphrase) 'if we/the majority decide it is not acceptable then people will have to stop and this includes the Jews' etc etc.
This is a fine viewpoint for a fascist.
Such a viewpoint suggests that a whole community is forced to change because you think that it should.
Were we to extend this to a logical extreme and such viewpoints were then extended to parenting skills by banning bad parenting. Based on current research to avoid harm, do you think your current practices would be acceptable? Yet I could 'prove' by the same standards of proof that is used in this circumcision thread that virtually all parents that visit this forum do not meet 'acceptable' standards. Would you accept this intrusion/monitoring.
Exactly. Saying that "banning doesn't work" is ludicrous. If that were indeed the case, our society would be complete anarchy.
Obviously there will always be a few law-breakers but generally, most people obey laws. Suggesting that we may as well not have laws because of a small percentage of lawbreakers is a wee bit strange - most girls will now be protected from circumcision. Should we leave all of those girls unprotected just because a small minority choose not to obey the law? I don't think so!
Ahh, the good ol 'most' argument and the mis-statement of what I said. You propose 'law' that suits your view, which is fine and what I would expect. BUT you do not suggest that it is workable. According to the police drugs unit I spoke with a few weeks ago there is not a secondary school in suburban Australia where you cannot buy drugs. yet they are illegal yes and we have 'laws' yes...so why do they not work. Can you name a prison in australia where there is not a drug problem?
You want to make a societal change by force, which has in history no chance of succeeding, yet will by it's very nature offend, ostracise and victimise some already marginal communities, yet you would see this as just.
Pippi Longstocking
16-08-2007, 11:11
Ahh, the good ol 'most' argument and the mis-statement of what I said. You propose 'law' that suits your view, which is fine and what I would expect. BUT you do not suggest that it is workable. According to the police drugs unit I spoke with a few weeks ago there is not a secondary school in suburban Australia where you cannot buy drugs. yet they are illegal yes and we have 'laws' yes...so why do they not work. Can you name a prison in Australia where there is not a drug problem?
You want to make a societal change by force, which has in history no chance of succeeding, yet will by it's very nature offend, ostracise and victimise some already marginal communities, yet you would see this as just.
Do you think maybe that if there were no drug laws, there would be even more drugs available in schools? I do. I think laws generally do work most of the time. It is a far better option to have laws that are mostly obeyed than not having any at all.
Phyllis Stein
16-08-2007, 11:43
Unfortunately and to (IMO) the great discredit of this forum, there has been views expressed on this forum that (to paraphrase) 'if we/the majority decide it is not acceptable then people will have to stop and this includes the Jews' etc etc.
This is a fine viewpoint for a fascist.
Such a viewpoint suggests that a whole community is forced to change because you think that it should.
Were we to extend this to a logical extreme and such viewpoints were then extended to parenting skills by banning bad parenting. Based on current research to avoid harm, do you think your current practices would be acceptable? Yet I could 'prove' by the same standards of proof that is used in this circumcision thread that virtually all parents that visit this forum do not meet 'acceptable' standards. Would you accept this intrusion/monitoring.
In my view, this isn't 'tyranny of the masses' so much as the 'tyranny of truth'! Unlike the pro-circ lobby, the position of those anti-circ are backed up by empirical evidence, hence the decision that it is no longer justifiable to publicly fund non-medical circs.
stellarella
16-08-2007, 11:53
Isnt it one of the main reasons people dont get it done, so they look like their peers?
This is definately NOT the reason my son wont be circumcised...
It's more to do with the fact that I would be consenting to him having a part of his delicate and sensitive penis amputated for absolutely no valid reason, permanently scarring him for the rest of his life :) ....my job is to pretect my son from hurt and pain and THAT is the reason I wont circumcise.
I know the issue of looking like his peers is often brought up but I think you will find that it is brought up in response to the argument by pro-RICs who say they want their son to look like their father.
I dont know any non-RICs who use the 'looking like his peers' reason for not circing :no:
stellarella
16-08-2007, 12:05
I didnt take you as being argumentative :)
But as a non-RICer I am telling you how I see it :)
Thats not a reason that comes into it for me and many others.
I dont make serious decisions about my sons health and welfare based on aesthetics.
Ah yet again we have the mystery of the missing posts, particularly the one where Guv said he would feel better being mussolini than vlad the impaler, when there was a comment about fascist views.
The reason I reinstate this aspect of the dialog is that it part of my principle concerns with respect to the opinions expressed in this section of the bub hub.
again we have the might is right arguments which are weak in nature and implementation. They also seek to influence by victimisation and discrimination, which does not work. After all the same attitude and strategy was tried for so long with abortion was it not and we all know how successful that was.
Pippi Longstocking
16-08-2007, 12:40
Ah yet again we have the mystery of the missing posts,
I don't think it's a mystery, I think the mods did it ;)
Also, it's "she" not "he". Ta.
Oh I know, but the mods do work in mysterious ways, which has been a feature of conversation between a couple of MCHN's and myself when discussing this very section of bub hub. The edits are curious and not always unbiased.
' She' is noted.
In my view, this isn't 'tyranny of the masses' so much as the 'tyranny of truth'! Unlike the pro-circ lobby, the position of those anti-circ are backed up by empirical evidence, hence the decision that it is no longer justifiable to publicly fund non-medical circs.
Unfortunately this is not true in many respects. However you have failed to address the topic of my post. Were we to extend the 'truth' as you see it to other areas of parenting, would you be so joyous in your extolling of 'truth'.
Chickadee
16-08-2007, 13:18
Ah yet again we have the mystery of the missing posts, particularly the one where Guv said he would .
the posts in question were deleted because in my opinion they were degenerating into name calling between the two of you, and did not add anything worthwhile to the general discussion.
Every member is free to present their opinion and discuss the issue, so long as they follow the rules, in particular:
Messages should be polite and friendly. Others are free to express their opinions and beliefs and any difference of opinion should not be taken personally.
Please do not post any messages that harrass, insult, belittle or threaten another member.
Please do not post with the sole purpose of starting a dispute. This includes messages in profiles and signatures.
The deleted posts were not particularly friendly.
If you wish to discuss moderation any further, please pm me or any other moderator of this site.
I've deleted a few more off topic posts in this section. This thread is about routine infant circumcision becoming unavailable through the public health system. It has not been banned, but it will not be funded from public health money.
If we can stick to that topic, this thread can stay open (though feel free to start a new thread for any new topic that you wish to discuss).
Cheers
It should not be available in the public health system. It is a 'minor op' when done early enough and can be done in a day surgery or parents home etc.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.