Circumcisions Myths for the pro-circ POV

[Barry]

One often repeated myth is that routine circumcision is frowned upon by western doctors and only backwater countries that declare it safe/fine/okay/etc. As well as that it medically it negatively affects the child.

The Australian Pediatrics Association has actually stated that there is no reason to, or not to circumcise your child and that it's solely at the discretion of a parent if they wish too.

[Barry]

One myth going around is that social circumcisions are refundable by medicare.

Medicare should only pay for circumcision when it is performed for medical reasons. (i.e an existing medical condition)

What is happening in practice is that some doctors are declaring to Medicare that social circumcisions are due to some fictitious medical condition.

If parents are getting a medicare rebate from a doctor for a social circumcision, then its a safe bet that doctor is committing fraud.

This is a little misleading and mythical.

A typical circumcision will involve an initial consultation, then later the procedure itself, anesthetic and/or medical tools. Whilst the procedure itself may be exempt from medicare rebate in certain circumstances, both consultations and the anesthetic are covered under the medicare benefits scheme.

So your two main costs, the consultations are covered and you will get a fair portion of the total outlay rebated, legally.

[~rambox~]

This is a little misleading and mythical.

A typical circumcision will involve an initial consultation, then later the procedure itself, anesthetic and/or medical tools. Whilst the procedure itself may be exempt from medicare rebate in certain circumstances, both consultations and the anesthetic are covered under the medicare benefits scheme.



This is exactly what happened with my boys, I also had to have a referal from the pediatrician first. It cost just over $500 and we got about half that back through Medicare.

[tweedledee*tweedledum]

...Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal functional and protective prepuce.


Jen

I find this statement exaggerated, as whilst yes there are some procedures done without anaesthesia, i.e some religious rituals, this is not the case for all circumcisions. I daresay there would be more circumcisions performed with anaesthetic than without.

[xkwzit]

I have moved some off topic posts. I created this thread when some ppl complained about the pro-circ comments in the "other" circ myths (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=36666) thread. I now find anti-circ posts in this thread.

This thread title clearly states that it is from a pro-circ perspective. Please keep on topic, I will not be moving any further off topic posts from this thread, they will just be deleted.

Cheers

[Yasmeena]

One often repeated myth is that routine circumcision is frowned upon by western doctors and only backwater countries that declare it safe/fine/okay/etc. As well as that it medically it negatively affects the child.

The Australian Pediatrics Association has actually stated that there is no reason to, or not to circumcise your child and that it's solely at the discretion of a parent if they wish too.

But The Royal Australasian College of Physicians has on their website

The CPS recommended "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed" (reaffirmed February 2001: (www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN†) and the AAP concluded "we cannot recommend a policy of routine newborn circumcision". (www.aap.org/mrt/factscir.htm).

Following the present review of the evidence, the RACP concurs with these statements and endorses the 1996 statement of the Australian College of Paediatrics (now the Division of Paediatrics and Child Health of RACP) and Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons that “Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication".

http://www.racp.edu.au/hpu/paed/circumcision/policy.htm

so while I agree that it is soley at the discretion of parents to choose whether or not to circumcise their son it is a little misleading to insinuate that the paediatrics association is entirely indifferent to circumcision, when it seems that they do not actively condemn the procedure, they certainly do not recommend it.

Also my sons circumcision was fully covered by medicare :yes:

[Barry]

when it seems that they do not actively condemn the procedure, they certainly do not recommend it.


That's what I said.

They neither recommend or protest against the procedure being performed - they have made it clear that there is no medical reasoning supporting either choice, therefore it's the parents choice.

***quote from deleted post removed***

Read the full positioning statements.

They clearly state they have reviewed all evidence in favour of circumcision and in favour of not circumcising and have come to the conclusion that currently the benefits of circumcision are real however do not breach the benchmark for recommending routine surgery.

This does not mean they are recommended not to circumcise as you seem to read it. That is a false dichotomy.

***quote from deleted post removed***

Exactly, proven benefits and with todays techniques the risks of surgery are outwieghed by those benefits. There was a study in the Clinical Pediatrics Journal (#32) which tracked 136,000 boys those who were circumcised routinely had 0.19% complication rate, majority of which were minor. However the those that weren't routinuely circumcised had ten times the amount of complications and problems.