go freedom

[smallsbetter]

i'm so glad we still have the ability to make this choice. my son was circumcised at 19 months, under anesthetic, at a public hospital for free. i'd prefer not disclose our reasons because i feel it's irrelevant. his recovery was quick and we were aware of the risks. i think its more common than people would like you to believe

[Father]

I too think it is more common than people would like you to believe.

Most of the figures that people quote are medicare figures. So any circumcision that does not get claimed through medicare would then be undetected (as was the case for our first boy).
The anti crowd love to state (for some reason) "that you cannot claim it on medicare" (which is true in some states) and "it is illegal to do so", but at the same time love quoting the medicare figures.
The medicare figures are showing in increase over the last few years, so public perception is obviously changing too.

[JohnC]

The medicare figures are showing in increase over the last few years, so public perception is obviously changing too.

Medicare data alone is indeed inadequate for measuring the incidence of infant circumcision over the past decade, since in 2000 public hospitals in all States bar Queensland performed elective (ie non-medical) circumcision of infants and now none do. (Public patient procedures do not attract a Medicare rebate.)

As policies changed in the various States, the Medicare rebates claimed rose as parents who wished their son circumcised turned to private practicioners. This rise in the number of rebates (about 4,000 per annum over 10 years for boys aged under six months) was about the same as the fall in public patient circumcisions in the same cohort. If one schemes these numbers across the number of births in each year, the rate of circumcision has actually fallen somewhat.

This is no surprise, since other data tell us that the proportion of first-time fathers who are themselves intact has of course been increasing rather sharply, reflecting the steep decline of the practice in the 1970s and 80s. There would appear to be no likliehood of this trend reversing, given that the official position of RACP in its statement of last September is not materially different from its previous statements, namely:

"After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand."

Now that all public hospital systems (with the exception of the Northern Territory) are in policy alignment, Medicare rebate figures can be regarded as a much more accurate guide than in the past. For the record, there were 19,981 rebates for infants in calendar year 2009 and 19,417 in 2010.

It should be noted that in Australia (but not NZ) non-medical practioners may perform circumcisions, and it is of course not compulsory to claim a rebate to which you are entitled. However, if we correlate the health system data with survey data, it would appear that these two cases of "hidden" circumcisions are not statistically significant (~ 1%).

[Father]

Just for clarity, I'll add the sentence from the RACP immediately after John's quote:


However it is reasonable for parents to weigh the benefits and risks of
circumcision and to make the decision whether or not to circumcise their sons.

Not at all surprising that an anti-circ activist would intentionally cut out that sentence. And please don't debate this John. There is a discuss it or anti section for you to debate on.

And another quote from the RACP that is directly relevent to this thread:


Parental choice should be respected.

If only the activists could follow the RACP completely rather than abuse those who make this reasonable decision.

[JohnC]

Not at all surprising that an anti-circ activist would intentionally cut out that sentence. And please don't debate this John. There is a discuss it or anti section for you to debate on.

Wouldn't dream of debating here, Father! Only posted to clarify some muddy thinking about how to read the Medicare data, something all sides of this discussion can hopefully agree on.