Circumcision is good for you, say local experts

THE ban on circumcision of boys in many public hospitals has come under fire from 12 medical experts, who say the latest evidence from around the world shows the procedure reduces risk of infections, cancer and painful conditions.

More than 80 per cent of Australian boys are uncircumcised, exposing them to significantly higher risk of urinary tract infections in childhood and in later life to other diseases including prostate cancer, and in their female partners cervical cancer, their study finds.

The research leader, a Sydney University professor of medicine, Brian Morris, said the study was the most comprehensive assessment of international evidence on the issue yet undertaken. ''The evidence in favour of infant circumcision is now so strong that advocating this … procedure for baby boys is about as effective and safe as childhood vaccination.''
Advertisement: Story continues below

The conclusion challenges the practice of many paediatricians and the policy of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians. After reviewing the available evidence, the college declared in 2010 that the level of protection offered by circumcision and its complication rates did not warrant routine infant circumcision. But Professor Morris dismisses that view as ''blinkered ideology''.

The new study says that factors discouraging the procedure probably included biased information given to young parents, the ban on the procedure in most public hospitals in Australia and the low Medicare rebate, which made it unaffordable for low-income families.

Among authors of the study are several professors of medicine, including public health expert Stephen Leeder and HIV expert Professor David Cooper.

Their report presents a risk-benefit analysis of circumcision. It shows that in uncircumcised infants, the risk of urinary tract infection and kidney inflammation is 10 times higher than for circumcised boys. In later life, risk of prostate cancer and penile cancer is higher, and for HIV and syphilis three to eight times higher. For the female partner of an uncircumcised male, the risk of cervical cancer is four times higher.

Professor Morris says that in contrast to the comments of opponents, ''the scientific evidence shows no adverse effects on sexual function, sensitivity, satisfaction or sensation, if anything the opposite''.

''It is now up to state governments to ensure that bans on elective infant male circumcision in public hospitals are lifted without delay. And it is essential that the federal government revises the Medicare rebate so that this procedure is … affordable.''

http://www.theage.com.au/national/circumcision-is-good-for-you-say-local-experts-20120301-1u60f.html

Brian Morris's leftist stance is well known. I have it on reliable evidence that he's a member of the Ryde Greens.

Matty is considering an internship with him when he becomes a specialist.

tonegunman1 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 11:40am:


Wait for the muslims to find out about labia plasty...

They will probably use this as a reason to justify female genital mutilation.

tonegunman1 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 11:40am:


It can be argued that there are some health benfits to be gained from male circumcision.  Please note, however, in saying that I am not saying that I agree with the practice.  I personally consider it to be a barbaric leftover from previous centuries when standards of cleanliness were nowhere near what they are today.

There is no possible benefit from female "circumcision" or, as it is more correctly termed, genital mutilation.

Quote:

... and the best medical advice tells us that the incidence of breast cancer is almost eliminated with a precautionary double mastectomy for all teenage girls

TWELVE medicos, eh!

QUITE a movement

It seems to be at least ONE thing Jewish and Muslim physicians can AGREE on

Frances wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 1:28pm:


If you ask a Muslim, it is only called mutilation if you do it the non-Muslim way. If done 'properly', it is called circumcision.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 11:54am:


You mean like nipples on men? What about underarm hair, does it serve a purpose? Better not cut your fingernails if you feel that way.

Forgive my ignorance towards the monumentally stupid, but I thought circumcision was a Jewish thing?