+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 58
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,054
    Thanks
    269
    Thanked
    1,053
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Interestingly their earlier stance was much stronger
    The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons does not support the routine circumcision of male neonates, infants or children in Australia. It is considered to be inappropriate and unnecessary as a routine to remove the prepuce, based on the current evidence available. We do not support the removal of a normal part of the body, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise. In particular, we are opposed to male children being subjected to a procedure, which had they been old enough to consider the advantages and disadvantages, may well have opted to reject the operation and retain their prepuce.
    — The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, “Guidelines for circumcision”, 1996

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,978
    Thanks
    2,502
    Thanked
    1,773
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Lol @meredithgrey! Wicked!

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,978
    Thanks
    2,502
    Thanked
    1,773
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Homeopathic vaccines and subluxation work, right?

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to JustJaq For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (13-04-2015)

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Inner West
    Posts
    3,273
    Thanks
    1,892
    Thanked
    1,917
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the WeekBusiest Member of the Week - week ended 19/9/2014Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/7/2014200 Posts in a week100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Hootenanny View Post
    I wasn't sure whether to put this in vaxxing or circumcision as it does cross over so admin is welcome to change it if they wish. In light of the recent discussion about forcing families to vaccinate or loose money how do those of you that support the anti-vax measure but don't circumcise feel about this?

    This study/article shows the individual and public health benefits to circumcision and suggests it be mandatory.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...mandatory.html

    What if some pollies and a newspaper runs with the study and pushes for mandatory circumcision, talks about linking it to welfare payments.

    Hypothetically if this were to happen would it 'make' you circumcise your son, keeping in mind that medical research shows it is better for his health and the health of others, and that if you don't you would loose benefits?
    (Personally for me - still a no)

    Thoughts?
    I'm not sure how a thread like this is helpful at all, but regardless the flaw in your link between the two is that in the case of vaccines there is not only a wealth of science on the benefits and mitigation of serious risks; but there is also long established public health policy on the benefits of routine vaccination.

    By comparison, circumcision is a family, religious and cultural practice that is undertaken by/on less than 20% of the population and delivers some possible medical benefits that are comparatively far more minor than the benefits of vaccination against preventable disease.

    For example the claim that it reduces the risk of cancer of the penis would be significant if this was a very prevalent condition, but it's not - it's extremely rare and not passed from person to person unwittingly the way whooping cough can be, with devastating consequences.

    Likewise the claim that circumcision as a treatment may reduce the treatment of HPV doesn't stand up to the fact that there's a far less invasive way to reduce HPV through the Gardasil vaccine.

    Following the principle of 'first, so no harm' I can't see an argument at all for removing a piece of a mans penis when a vaccine is as effective and less invasive.

    So it's not really apples with apples and more the sort of nonsense anti-vax article that pops up to argue against immunisation.

    All that aside, if your fundamental question is: would you use a treatment that had significant benefits for a child and some downsides then yes I would, and I would expect public health policy makers to deliver health policy on the basis of significant evidence to encourage that treatment. I've read numerous accounts from mums of very sick babies who all say they'd try anything to protect their babies, so if there was another real example then I think it's a no brainer.... but using circumcision as an example is just trying to start a bubhub bunfight.

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to ScubaGal For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (13-04-2015),Busy-Bee  (18-06-2015),ExcuseMyFrench  (13-04-2015),HappyBovinexx  (13-04-2015),JustJaq  (13-04-2015)

  7. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Toowoomba
    Posts
    15,262
    Thanks
    628
    Thanked
    1,178
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 26/3/15100 Posts in a week
    There is a lot of cultural bias attached to recommendations made by any American based organisation. It is still the done thing in America so of cause they're not going to say "Hey, we don't recommend it but go for it all you like".

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Chunkydunks For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (13-04-2015)

  9. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,054
    Thanks
    269
    Thanked
    1,053
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JustJaq View Post
    Ooh! Can we somehow incorporate BF vs FF too? Definitely going to need some popcorn! ������
    If you like you could start another thread on the health benefits of breastfeeding, the increased immunity of breastfed babies, thus decreasing the transmission of disease in children. And tie it in with govt withdrawal of benefits for formula feeders to reduce illness. Sounds fanciful at best, sounds as ridiculous and as unlikely as I would have thought it would be that the govt would ever take thousands of dollars from families for their health choices. Until now.

  10. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,248
    Thanks
    6,367
    Thanked
    17,670
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    It's apples and oranges though. Whether I circ or don't circ my son doesn't affect a whole community. Research does show that circed men have a lower rate of HPV and other STD transmission. But according to the anti circ argument that is solved with condoms. And the HPV vax

    The crux of the pro vax argument is that you aren't just risking your child's life. You are risking everyone's safety, particularly the most vulnerable - newborns, the elderly, immuno-compromised people. Circing isn't the same.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (13-04-2015),Gentoo  (13-04-2015)

  12. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,054
    Thanks
    269
    Thanked
    1,053
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ScubaGal View Post
    but using circumcision as an example is just trying to start a bubhub bunfight.
    No, I am trying to encourage people to think outside the square, to use an argument they feel strongly about and then go BUT there are studies which show circ decreases deady diseases and there are countries who could potentially make this an expected outcome for children born there. Imagine being in one of those places!!

  13. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Inner West
    Posts
    3,273
    Thanks
    1,892
    Thanked
    1,917
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the WeekBusiest Member of the Week - week ended 19/9/2014Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/7/2014200 Posts in a week100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Hootenanny View Post
    No, I am trying to encourage people to think outside the square, to use an argument they feel strongly about and then go BUT there are studies which show circ decreases deady diseases and there are countries who could potentially make this an expected outcome for children born there. Imagine being in one of those places!!
    But they aren't deadly diseases in the same way that a real measles or WC outbreak can be.

    For example cervical cancer is one of the most detectable and treatable cancers out there, again readily detectable and avoided through Pap smears and Gardasil which are far less invasive than removing part of an appendage.

  14. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Inner West
    Posts
    3,273
    Thanks
    1,892
    Thanked
    1,917
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the WeekBusiest Member of the Week - week ended 19/9/2014Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/7/2014200 Posts in a week100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Hootenanny View Post
    If you like you could start another thread on the health benefits of breastfeeding, the increased immunity of breastfed babies, thus decreasing the transmission of disease in children. And tie it in with govt withdrawal of benefits for formula feeders to reduce illness. Sounds fanciful at best, sounds as ridiculous and as unlikely as I would have thought it would be that the govt would ever take thousands of dollars from families for their health choices. Until now.
    Also not a comparable argument. Sure there are some benefits to breastfeeding but both BF and FF are still feeding which is the objective, and neither present a major public health risk (or a measurable risk at all as far as I understand it), which is the premise for the governments attempt to increase vaccination levels.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to ScubaGal For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (13-04-2015)


 

Similar Threads

  1. Know the risks of D&C's - Asherman's Syndrome
    By Starf1sh in forum Pregnancy Loss Support
    Replies: 269
    Last Post: 21-08-2017, 15:39
  2. Family tax benefits
    By maternidade in forum Family Finances
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 30-06-2014, 22:53

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
FEATURED SUPPORTER
Billington StreetFor stationery as unique as you are! ♥ Handmade, custom designed stationery for all of life's celebrations WINNER ...
REVIEWS
"Made bed time less anxious"
by Meld85
My Little Heart Whisbear - the Humming Bear reviews ›
"Wonderful natural Aussie made product!"
by Mrstwr
Baby U Goat Milk Moisturiser reviews ›
"Replaced good quality with cheap tight nappies"
by Kris
Coles Comfy Bots Nappies reviews ›