Difference between revisions of "Australia"

From IntactiWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Add Wright paper)
(Clean-up)
Line 28: Line 28:
  
 
Wright (1967) slammed the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision.<ref name="wright1967">{{REFjournal
 
Wright (1967) slammed the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision.<ref name="wright1967">{{REFjournal
 
+
|last=Wright
+
|first=JE
|last=Wright
+
|author-link=
 
+
|etal=no
+
|title=Non-therapeutic circumcision
|first=JE
+
|trans-title=
 
+
|language=
+
|journal=Med J Aust
|author-link=
+
location=
 
+
|date=1967-05-27
+
|volume=1
|etal=no
+
|issue=
 
+
|pages=1083-7
+
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/general/wright4/
|title=Non-therapeutic circumcision
+
|quote=
 
+
|pubmedID=6028342
+
|pubmedCID=
|trans-title=
+
|DOI=
 
+
|accessdate=2019-10-28
+
}}</ref>
|language=
 
 
 
 
|journal=Med J Aust
 
 
 
 
|location=
 
 
 
 
|date=1967-05-27
 
 
 
 
|volume=1
 
 
 
 
|issue=
 
 
 
 
|pages=1083-7
 
 
 
 
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/general/wright4/
 
 
 
 
|quote=
 
 
 
 
|pubmedID=6028342
 
 
 
 
|pubmedCID=
 
 
 
 
|DOI=
 
 
 
 
|accessdate=2019-10-28
 
 
 
 
}}</ref>
 
 
 
 
 
Example</ref>
 
 
 
  
 
The ''Australian Paediatric Journal'' issue of June 1970, published three articles critical of non-therapeutic infant circumcision.<ref>{{REFjournal
 
The ''Australian Paediatric Journal'' issue of June 1970, published three articles critical of non-therapeutic infant circumcision.<ref>{{REFjournal

Revision as of 15:08, 28 October 2019

Construction Site

This article is work in progress and not yet part of the free encyclopedia IntactiWiki.

 

A report on circumcision in Australia.

Australia, like other English-speaking countries, once had a rather high rate of non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision of male infants, however Australia now has a very low rate of non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision.

History

The indigeous people of Australia, the Aborgines, have variously practiced subincision and circumcision since before the first contact with Europeans.

The incidence of non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision in Australia approached that of the United States in the 1930s through 1960s.

Douglas Gairdner's famous, classic 1949 paper, The Fate of the Foreskin: A Study of Circumcision,[1] seems to have had no effect in Australia.

Wright (1967) slammed the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision.[2]

The Australian Paediatric Journal issue of June 1970, published three articles critical of non-therapeutic infant circumcision.[3][4][5]

Position statements of medical societies

After considering the three papers published in the Australian Paediatric Journal, the Australian Paediatric Society adopted a resolution on April 24, 1971 that the circumcision of male infants should not be performed as a routine measure. That resolution subsequently was reported in a letter published in the Medical Journal of Australia on May 22, 1971.[6]

External links

References

  1. REFjournal Gairdner, Douglas M.. The fate of the foreskin: a study of circumcision. British Medical Journal. 1949; 2(4642): 1433-1437. PMID. PMC. DOI. Retrieved 28 October 2019.
  2. REFjournal Wright, JE. Non-therapeutic circumcision. Med J Aust location=. 27 May 1967; 1: 1083-7. PMID. Retrieved 28 October 2019.
  3. REFjournal Leitch, I.O., et al. Circumcision: the continuing enigma. Aust Paediatr J. March 1970; 6(1): 59-65. PMID. Retrieved 27 October 2019.
  4. REFjournal Birrell, R.G.. Circumcision. Aust Paediatr J. June 1960; 6(2): 66-7. PMID. Retrieved 27 October 2019.
  5. REFjournal Smith, E.D.. Another view of circumcision. Aust Paediatr J. June 1970; 6(2): 67-9. PMID. Retrieved 27 October 2019.
  6. REFjournal Belmaine, SP. Circumcision. Medical Journal of Australia. 22 May 1971; 1: 1148. Retrieved 28 October 2019.