Changes

The incidence of male neonatal non-therapeutic medically unnecessary [[circumcision]] in New Zealand among white New Zealanders rose to about 95 percent in the 1940s. The incidence of male neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision started to decline about 1950. The decline seems to have been triggered by the publication of [[Douglas Gairdner]]'s classic 1949 paper, ''The Fate of the Foreskin: A Study of Circumcision''.<ref name="gairdner1949">{{REFjournal |last=Gairdner |first=D.M.|author-link=Douglas Gairdner |title=The fate of the foreskin: a study of circumcision |journal=British Medical Journal |volume=2 |issue=4642 |pages=1433-1437 |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2051968/pdf/brmedj03656-0009.pdf |quote= |pubmedID=15408299 |pubmedCID=2051968 |DOI=10.1136/bmj.2.4642.1433 |date=GairdnerDM 1949 |accessdate=2019-10-28}}</ref>

Dr Phil Silva reported that 40.3 percent of boys born in 1972-3 in the [https://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/ Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study] were [[circumcised]].

The incidence of circumcision was reported at 0.35 percent among New Zealander boys in 1995.<refname="mcgrath-young2001">{{REFbook

The [http://www.nzma.org.nz/ New Zealand Medical Association] estimated in 2001 that about one percent of Caucasian boys were being [[circumcised]], but nearly 100 percent of Tongan, Samoan, and Jewish boys are being [[circumcised]].<ref name="bone2001">{{REFnews

}}</ref> The New Zealand Public Health System does not fund non-therapeutic circumcision.<ref name="afsari2002">{{REFjournal |last=Afsari |first=Mahnaz |init= |author-link= |last2=Beasley |first2=Spencer W. |init2= |author2-link= |last3=Moate |first3=Kiki |init3= |author3-link= |last4=Hecket |first4=Karen |init4= |author4-link= |etal=no |title=Attitudes of Pacific parents to circumcision of boys |trans-title= |language= |journal=Pac Health Dialog |location= |date=2002-03 |volume=9 |issue=1 |article= |page= |pages=29-31 |url=http://pacifichealthdialog.nz/pre-2013-archive/Volume209/No20120_20Emergency20Health20In20The20Pacific/Original20Papers/Attitudes20of20Pacific20Island20parents20to20circumcision20of20boys.pdf |archived= |quote= |pubmedID=12737414 |pubmedCID= |DOI= |accessdate=2021-11-08}}</ref>

The option of leaving circumcision until later, when the boy is old enough to make a decision for himself does need to be raised with parents and considered. This option has recently been recommended by the [[Royal Dutch Medical Association]]. The ethical merit of this option is that it seeks to respect the child’s [[physical integrity]], and capacity for autonomy by leaving the options open for him to make his own autonomous choice in the future. However, deferring the decision may not always be the best option. As noted earlier, the psychosocial benefits of circumcision (e.g. full inclusion in a religious community) may only be obtained if circumcision is done in infancy. Waiting until the boy is twelve years old or more (i.e. old enough to make his own decision) may mean losing benefits that circumcision was intended to produce.<ref name="racp2010">{{REFdocument

The males in New Zealand who are [[circumcised ]] are mostly older men. The percentage of males who are circumcised is gradually declining as older circumcised males die off and are replaced by younger [[intact ]] males. Almost no white males under 35-years-of-age are circumcised.

The Maori people who constitute about 17 percent of the population do not circumcise.<ref name="mcgrath-young2001" />

It is said that the small Jewish population have to fly in a ''[[mohel]]'' if they want to have a son [[circumcised]].<ref name="mcgrath-young2001" />

The Pacific Island people who constitute 8.1 percent of the population are an exception. The Pacific Islanders circumcise (actually a [[dorsal slit]]) as part of their culture.<ref name="afsari2002"/> <ref>{{REFnews