Circumcision debate fires up as Medicare benefits reviewed

THE long-running debate on circumcision is set to return with fresh force as the federal government considers whether the procedure should continue to qualify for Medicare payments.

The Health Department has put circumcision under the scrutiny of an expert committee as part of a Medicare quality and safety review of paediatric surgery. The review comes at a time of widely diverging views on the need for the removal of boys' foreskins soon after birth.

Most public hospitals have dropped the operation in Australia. But a group of senior medical experts have called for a government rethink, declaring there is now strong evidence that circumcision reduces risk of infectious diseases and cancer.

Advertisement: Story continues below
About half of uncircumcised boys will suffer an adverse medical condition as a result of their foreskin over their lifetime, says the Circumcision Foundation of Australia, whose members include several professors of medicine.

The foundation, led by Sydney University medical scientist, Brian Morris, has written to state and federal health ministers appealing for an end to the ban on elective male circumcision in public hospitals and for a substantial increase in the Medicare benefit for the operation. The rate is less than $40 when performed on boys under six months old, leaving uninsured parents with high gap charges. The federal government withdrew Medicare benefits for circumcision in the 1980s but quickly restored them after an outcry from the Jewish community. Critics say there is little medical reason to circumcise an infant and that it should be withdrawn from Medicare coverage unless found to be medically necessary.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/circumcision-debate-fires-up-as-medicare-benefits-reviewed-20120507-1y936.html#poll

Poll

Quote:

The federal government withdrew Medicare benefits for circumcision in the 1980s but quickly restored them after an outcry from the Jewish community.

There IS a substantial VOTE involved, but I wonder how many taxpayers are aware of the Medicare budget being sourced for what can only be classified as non-essential cosmetic surgery ?

I thought these people had their OWN people to perform this - now commonly viewed - form of child abuse ?



An August 2011 letter in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health estimates that circumcision rates have dropped to 12.4%.

The letter was written by Robert Darby Ph.D., and analyzes data on Medicaid rebates for circumcision from 2000-2010, tracking a declining trend in infant circumcision rates from its peak of 90% in the 1950s.

Circumcision started in English-speaking countries during the 1800s as an expression of Victorian-era morals which demonized sexual pleasure, especially masturbation.

Circumcision was expressly performed to prevent masturbation in both boys and girls. Whereas male circumcision became medicalized into the form known today as routine infant circumcision, female circumcision is now considered a form of female genital mutilation, and is banned in many countries.

The foreskin, or prepuce, is the most sensitive part of the penis. Circumcision is the amputation of the foreskin, which causes severe physical and psychological pain, including permanent loss of sexual function and long-term emotional pain response.

Male circumcision is considered a form of genital mutilation by many human rights organizations, including the Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, Doctors Opposing Circumcision, Intact America, Jews Against Circumcision, Jews for the Rights of the Child, the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers, the National Organization of Restoring Men, and the Whole Network.

No medical organization in the world recommends routine infant circumcision.

http://intactnews.org/node/114/1314023086/male-infant-circumcision-rate-decline-australia

____ wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 7:22am:

Circumcision debate fires up as Medicare benefits reviewed

- and here was I thinking it was a foregone conclusion.  :o

slashing and circumcision in the same sentence....ouch!

I agree if it's for medical reasons only.

It's a primitive act that the Jewish community embraces and they don't need the Medicare benefit.

muso wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 8:33am:

____ wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 7:22am: Circumcision debate fires up as Medicare benefits reviewed - and here was I thinking it was a foregone conclusion.  :o

circumcision jokes are funny - but there is a cut off point

Oh gawd. Another americanisation. Do we have to follow all their controversies? If it works why fix it? Why should medicare be able to choose between things to cover and things not to cover?

SOB

buzzanddidj wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 8:42am:

muso wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 8:33am: ____ wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 7:22am: Circumcision debate fires up as Medicare benefits reviewed - and here was I thinking it was a foregone conclusion.  :o circumcision jokes are funny - but there is a cut off point

There needs to some consistency in the debate. It's one of these issues where you really can't chop and change.  8-)

I don't really care about the circumcision debate, it's no skin off my nose.

muso wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 8:33am:

____ wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 7:22am: Circumcision debate fires up as Medicare benefits reviewed - and here was I thinking it was a foregone conclusion.  :o

Please apologize for that

It should be illegal.
Only when a person is an adult can he make the decision.
It's his body and no-one has a right to mutilate it.
Can't parents teach their children hygiene?
Stuff the jews and any-one else who support this abhorrent practice.

bludger wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 12:59pm:

It should be illegal. Only when a person is an adult can he make the decision. It's his body and no-one has a right to mutilate it. Can't parents teach their children hygiene? Stuff the jews and any-one else who support this abhorrent practice.

Isnt it something to do with religion?

SOB

It should be illegal for males NOT to have circumcision.

The medical benefits are proven.

I would have thought that if a male is circumcised he's not covered....

Bobby. wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 1:58pm:

It should be illegal for males NOT to have circumcision. The medical benefits are proven.

Good for YOU !

;) ;) ;)



Quote:

Circumcision started in English-speaking countries during the 1800s as an expression of Victorian-era morals which demonized sexual pleasure, especially masturbation. Circumcision was expressly performed to prevent masturbation in both boys and girls.

Bobby has a right to object on religious grounds.  :P

muso wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 3:43pm:

Bobby has a right to object on religious grounds.  :P

Yes - here is my religious quote of the day:


Quote:

Psalms Chapter 1 1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD and in his law doth he meditate day and night. 3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. 4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. 5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. 6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

muso wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 3:43pm:

Bobby has a right to object on religious grounds.  :P

He can object for himself but not everyone else. Medicare doesnt have the right on religious ground.

SOB

C'mon boys, don't be a dickhead

Bobby. wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 1:58pm:

It should be illegal for males NOT to have circumcision.

I hear it's quite popular in the gay community, Bobbie.

Is it your preference?

Karnal wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 12:35am:

Bobby. wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 1:58pm: It should be illegal for males NOT to have circumcision. I hear it's quite popular in the gay community, Bobbie. Is it your preference?

I don't know about the homo community -
why don't you tell us Karnal?
You're the expert on homos.

muso wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 9:08am:

buzzanddidj wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 8:42am: muso wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 8:33am: ____ wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 7:22am: Circumcision debate fires up as Medicare benefits reviewed - and here was I thinking it was a foregone conclusion.  :o circumcision jokes are funny - but there is a cut off point There needs to some consistency in the debate. It's one of these issues where you really can't chop and change.  8-)

Quite right,muso, once this gets the chop its gone forever.

What happened to the short-sighted circumcisor?  He got the sack.

SOB

I believe this particular topic has come to a head. ;D

Not quite. I have a bone to pick.


Quote:

The foreskin, or prepuce, is the most sensitive part of the penis. Circumcision is the amputation of the foreskin, which causes severe physical and psychological pain, including permanent loss of sexual function and long-term emotional pain response.

Just for a heads-up, the foreskin is not the most sensitive part of the penis.