Why are circ rates stuck?

[JohnC]

A key question that arises from the table (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3472/3318368838_9bdcccf165_b.jpg) I posted in the statistics thread (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=239665), is why after 25 years of sharply declining rates, the incidence of circumcision has plateaued for the past decade. I would like to suggest there are several factors at play:

1. The growth of medical entrepreneurs (particularly in Queensland and NSW) who are aggressively, and successfully, pushing their services at great profit. This graph (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3564/3321294651_64c6912816_b.jpg) shows the trend.

2. The introduction of the Medicare Safety Net has meant that what would have been a prohibitively costly procedure for many parents has now become affordable, if not free. By way of example, consider this post (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showpost.php?p=3061907&postcount=12). The safety net has provided cover for all kinds of taxpayer-funded overservicing, but professional circumcisers have been a particularly obvious beneficiary.

3. Relatively high rates of circumcision have been ghettoised to regional population pockets (of mainly Anglo-Celtic couples and doctors) that by their nature are resistant to change. There have been at least three studies that have identified this trend (I'd be happy to dig them out if anyone is interested).

The influence of the last factor means that for those living in such pockets, the circ rate (gauged from relatives, friends and neighbours) appears much higher than it actually is nationally. Conversely, routine circumcision seems to be almost entirely a religious phenonemon for most urban Australians.

[Milliner]

Love your work John. Thank you for posting.

[JohnC]

It should be added that while the incidence of circumcision (rate) has remained steady over the past 10 years, the prevalence (ie the percentage of living males who are circumcised) is falling and will continue to do so even if incidence stays where it is.

This is important because circ profiteers such as Terry Russell seek to confuse people by saying that 50% of Australian males are circumcised (prevalence), leading people to believe that 50% of boys are circed (incidence). The former is more or less true, while the latter is of course completely false. See this post (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?p=3194951#post3194951) and surrounding discussion for an example of the confusion.

Now while prevalence has in the past involved a lot of guess work, we now have very good data (thanks to a huge national survey) that allows us to state with confidence that the prevalence of circumcision among males aged 0 to 65 years is currently around 45%.

I hope this is clear. I know statistics can sometimes be offputting, which is why graphs are often useful.

Here is a histogram (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3580/3323306644_03de020223_b.jpg) that illustrates prevalence by age (for technical reasons I was not able to break them all into neat 10-year cohorts, sorry).

[JohnC]

One thing you appear to have not factored in to your analysis is the fact that record numbers of immigrants were let into Australia for each of the years that John Howard was prime minister. This included letting in record numbers of immigrants from the Middle east etc. As of 2006, this was approx. 115,000 immigrants per year.
This, in my opinion, accounts entirely for any inflation in the statistics at all, or any stagnation in the reduction rate.

Well actually I did factor it in, but no I did not discuss it. I am happy to do so now :)

Australian Census data shows the number of persons (male and female) identified as Muslim increased by 139,512 from 1996 to 2006, to a total of 340,397. I have factored these into my prevalence numbers and histogram for 2008.

As for incidence, the number of Muslim children aged 0-14 years increased from 65,524 to 101,898 over the same 10-year period. Adding Jewish boys into the mix and doing some spiffy maths, I estimate that religious circumcision in 2008 accounted for 2 percentage points in that age group, up from about 1.2 points a decade earlier.

So you are indeed correct that the overall stable incidence figure actually disguises a decline in non-religious circumcision -- but not a big decline.

As a side-note, be aware there are some confounding factors. The increase in persons identifying as Muslim is less than we would expect from an analysis of the migration figures. This is because there is an eroding (and welcome) process of secularisation also occurring. By way of illustration, I know of two friends of my godson (18yo) who are Muslim enough to have Ramadan fast imposed at home but are not circumcised!

[Roopee]

I like having you around here:shakehands:. Love your work:yelclap:

[Milliner]

I like having you around here:shakehands:. Love your work:yelclap:

:iagree: What an amazing wealth of knowledge.

[WorkingClassMum]

Thank goodness someone is wise enough to able to disseminate all these figures and facts and make sensible statements

[JohnC]

Thanks for kind words :o

In the end this problem will not go away until all parents recognise that boys have the same rights to bodily integrity as girls. Their genitals, their decision.

If we can together assist that process, on this forum, by calm presentation and discussion of the evidence, it is at least a small contribution.

[babywez]

I am interested in your background JohnC. Why is this topic of particular interest to you?

[serendipity22]

Circumcision rates seem to get lower the further a region in Australia is from Terry Russell.

Brisbane has the highest rate, formerly Queensland had the highest rat, but has dropped sligthly so that NSW has caught up.

South Australia is next, then WA and Victoria.

Tasmania and NT have the lowest rates of all.

The differences are vast. 2% to 20%

I wonder what effect all these pro-circ media stories that feature people like Morris and Russell have on the rates?