17,101
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→History: Add text and citation.
[[Douglas Gairdner]]'s famous, classic 1949 paper, ''The Fate of the Foreskin: A Study of Circumcision'',<ref name="gairdner1949">{{GairdnerDM 1949}}</ref> seems to have had no effect in Australia. However, criticism of the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision accelerated in 1967.
The Melbourne Paediatric Society held a meeting on 12 November 1952 at which Dr. John Begg read a paper, "''Why Circumcise''" in which the practice of child circumcision was questioned.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Medical Societies
|init=
|author-link=
|last2=
|init2=
|author2-link=
|url=https://www.cirp.org/news/1953/1953-04-25_medjaust.php
|title=Why Circumcise?
|journal=Med J Aust
|date=1953-04-25
|volume=1
|issue=17
|pages=603-04
|pubmedID=13062881
|accessdate=2024-11-11
}}</ref>
Morgan (1967) criticised non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] in a letter published in the ''Medical Journal of Australia''.<ref>{{REFjournal
}}</ref>
[[Gregory J. Boyle | Boyle]] et al. (2000) suggested that non-therapeutic circumcision of boys is "criminal assault." They concluded:
<blockquote>
}}</ref>
Na et al. (2015) considered whether Australian boys should be [[circumcised]]. They concluded:
<blockquote>In conclusion, although there is a benefit of circumcision in those with urogenital tract anomalies, in a healthy newborn,the disease in the foreskin is non-existent. There is insufficient scientific evidence to support routine newborn circumcision in Australia done for UTI risk and [[HIV]] transmission issues alone. Therefore, any surgical complication and financial cost of routine newborn circumcision for these reasons in Australia currently cannot be justified. From a medical point of view, the‘price’ is still too high.<ref name="na2015">{{REFjournal
== The current situation in Australia ==
The [https://auspaediatrics.org.au/ Australian Pædiatric Association ] resolved in 1971 "that newborn male infants should not, as a routine, be circumcised." This decision was announced in a letter published in the ''Medical Journal of Australia''.<ref name="bellmaine1971" /> The Australian Pædiatric Association published a second explanatory letter in July 1971.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Hall
|first=
|pubmedCID=
|accessdate=2023-11-18
}}</ref> As stated above, the incidence of non-therapeutic [[circumcision ]] of boys declined precipitously after the publication of these letters, so most men under forty-three nine are [[intact]]. These [[foreskinned]] men are now becoming fathers. They are aware of the value and functions<ref name="helard2014">{{REFweb
|url=http://www.intactaus.org/information/functionsoftheforeskin/
|title=Functions of the Foreskin
|format=
|quote=
}}</ref> of the [[foreskin]] , so these [[intact]] fathers usually do not want any son to be [[circumcised]]. Moreover, public hospitals in Australia do not permit the performance of non-therapeutic [[circumcision]].<ref name="tanny2015">{{REFjournal
|last=Na
|first=
As a consequence, it appears that the efforts of the [[RACP]] to revitalize the [[circumcision industry]] in Australia<ref name="RACP2022" /> may have scant success. The incidence of non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of boys recently has been variously reported to be 4-10 percent.
[[Foreskinned]] men are in a strong and ever-increasing majority in Australia.
==Parental information==
{{LINKS}}
* {{URLwikipedia|Australia|Australia}}
* {{REFnews
|title=Victoria stops circumcision in public hospitals