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 Critics say there is little medical reason to circumcise an infant and that it should be withdrawn from Medicare coverage unless found to be medically necessary.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-...

Quote:







An August 2011 letter in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health estimates that circumcision rates have

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

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



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-...

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.

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

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

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.

It should be illegal for males NOT to have circumcision.

The medical benefits are proven.

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









Quote: