To snip or not to snip..?

As far as my comparison goes, I wasn't even comparing clitoridectomy to male circumcision. I was comparing removal of clitoral hood. And it's interesting to note that:

:

---

In the context of women who seek out labiaplasty, Stern opposes removal of the clitoral hood and points to potential scarring and nerve damage.[23]

---

From Female genital cutting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Problems which are very similar to those associated with male circumcision.

I am, of course, aware that no religions espouse FGM as part of their doctrine - that's not what I said. As I said, religious reasons are used as justification for the procedure, as pointed out, amongst the sub-Saraharan peoples, and Dachlostar is right that many of the faiths there consider it part of their religion even though it is not endorsed by the mainstream elements of said religions.

And as far as showing disrespect for Judaism and Islam? I have a great deal of respect for both of those religions. That does not mean, however, that I believe they are justified in performing a procedure in the name of their religion that is potentially harmful. I was brought up as a Pentecostal Christian, and I saw the practices - both very positive, and very harmful - that their doctrines espoused. Religious beliefs evolve and change - the Catholocism, Islam, and Judaism of today is very different from a century ago. I honestly believe the time will come when male circumcision stops being a tenet of those religions - or is sublimated into a sort of symbolic gesture.

Dachlostar - I wholeheartedly take your point about FGM being driven underground. You are right, it is a serious problem, it leads to more complications when performed by inexperienced practitioners, and it is probably not an unforseen consequence of the banning of the practice. Harm minimisation is a very reasonable strategy in this situation. But surely harm minimisation is a first step in a process that will eventually lead to re-education and a gradual shift away fom the practice?

Having said that, I think my discussion of FGM and religion has drawn us away from the topic at hand, and I apologise.

:

---

Greg, I would like to see a real reason why it stopped being done as rountine - not just a off hand assumtption that it was because of costs (and if that was the reason then well and good) but I can't see what huge cost would be involved in a procedure that uses no anaesthetics, no theatre, no time in a recovery ward. The only cost would have been the Drs time to do it really.

---

This is just discussion, but surely people of both views would admit the rate would have taken a downturn when funding was withdrawn. Money (or not getting any) is a pretty big discouragement. (I mean, gee - even pensioners are taking their clothes off on TV for just another $10.)

Most babies are born at public hospitals. When someone asks about circumcision at a public hospital (as we recently did) - you get told, "We are not allowed to recommend a doctor." Only one out of 3 or 4 medicos we discussed it with, even bothered to mention there are private doctors that do it. (The others gave the impression by omission that there were none, which we now know is rubbish.)

So with the seed of doubt planted in parents' minds - and - the cost now on the parent... Those sitting on the fence (or not knowing where to look elsewhere), would say, "Well that decides that then."

As for the minimal cost... It costs ~$400 to ~$1000 at the doctors we approached. Some do it in their own rooms - but most use private hospitals, which they have to pay a small fortune for. (And the nurse, cleaner, admin, etc.) Cost is relative anyway. While ~$400 (or even the ~$1000) wasn't expensive to us, once we had weighed up the risk/benefits... For others it would be.

:

---

I think once it was made redundant, for the first time parents were actually allowed to have thoughts on the subject and they were allowed to exercise their right as a parent to choose if they wanted it done or not.

---

Well, I don't agree it's been made redundant, or we wouldn't have found three doctors within 40km of each other. But if we shift that slightly to mean "once medicare was withdrawn"... I'm not sure from how far back you mean, but parents have had thoughts on it for a long time now. Some of the anti-info been given here quotes mid to late 60s. So that's three or four decades. In 1996 when it was still done in the public system, we still had to actually ask for circumcision. It wasn't a case of, "Ok, when would you like to book in your new son to be done?" We still had to seek out, even though it was offered for free.

Also, many people only use the public system. So when they hit a wall of silence there, of course it would be a big part of falling rates.

I also wanted to point out, people may think a lack of funding is not a cause, but boy - the doctors/nurses/midwives certainly do! Every time we asked about circumcision, "it's not done in the public system anymore" was the first statement, and "Oh - and there's no medicare." was always the second. So they obviously think (no) money is a big (de)motivator.

Besides, the government uses money as a medical motivator all the time. (Doctors are paid a fee per vaccination... When Costello wanted Australians to have more babies, he gave the baby bonus... etc.)

Of course all of this gives medicos against circumcision statistics to quote... "Circ has fallen to only xx%!" (And they quote it as if to say, "See? Falling rates PROVE it's becoming more unpopular with parents.") LOL - yeah, right. :rolleyes:

But it has been made redundant with it no longer being done as routine where the baby was just whisked away and done before mum and dad could bat an eyelid. I do think that the effort involved in firstly tracking down a Dr who will do it and the cost of paying for it have certainly been a disincentive to get it done, but out here you have to travel a minimum of 2hrs to find a Dr who will do it. I think the cost of doing it 'in-house' in a public hospital would still have been cheaper than what it would cost now as they are charging whatever they want simply because THEY CAN. And if it was simply a cost cutting measure I am pleased that the government decided to cut funding for a procedure that is largely cosmetic - I am sure they would still fund it if it was done for medical necessity.

:

---

I also wanted to point out, people may think a lack of funding is not a cause, but boy - the doctors/nurses/midwives certainly do! Every time we asked about circumcision, "it's not done in the public system anymore" was the first statement, and "Oh - and there's no medicare." was always the second. So they obviously think (no) money is a big (de)motivator.

---

Well, it's certainly not the first thing I say when asked about circumcision. I simply explain that there is no satisfactory evidence that circumcision has any benefits to the child, and that it carries a risk of complications, and is painful; I also make sure I tell parents that if they want it done, they should wait until 12 months of age, when the child is old enough to have adequate anaesthesia and pain relief, and that at that stage they can get it done privately.

And more to the point - circumcision is still covered by Medicare. The site you posted earlier - it lists the rebates for the procedure.

:

---

It's all well and good to say 'you were born with it, don't mess with nature', but unless you're a tree hugging hippy, with all your pubic hair, no piercings, no tatts, no colour in your hair, no fillings in your teeth, and a foreskin (if you're male), then truth be told, sometimes people do things to their body because they can. Same reason a dog licks it's own balls. Because it can. :lol:

---

I believe I was 'one of those' who said why stuff with nature and no I'm not a hippy although I do love trees :)

You can't really compare the adult choice of piercing, tatts, colouring your hair, removing your pubes etc etc with removing the foreskin of a newborn can you??? Perhaps it's just me but that argument seems a little unbalanced.

Mind you I'm on the fence - think I'd prefer to leave the foreskin on because it's not my body I'm operating on.

So Michael, it is covered under medicare, just not bulk billed then I take it? I'm gonig to ring my PHI to see if they cover it just out of curiosity.....

Bulk billing and medicare rebates are two different things.

It is up to the individual doctor as to whether they will bulk bill their patients for any particular procedure. You will find that some GPs will bulk bill for certain procedures where the medicare rebate is somewhat related to the actual cost of the procedure, such as routine consultations or some very minor surgical procedures. The problem with bulk billing arises because most medicare rebates are not an accurate reflection of the cost of the procedure; they are designed to offset the costs of a procedure, rather than pay for it completely. Bulk billing in these cases leaves the doctor our of pocket. I think that it is very unlikely that any doctor would bulk bill a circumcision, becauee as explained, the total cost of the procedure can go into the $1000.00s depending on the method of anaesthesia, whereas the rebate is only $1-200.

I'm not sure about private health insurance.

My DS was done by my obs in hospital while we were still in after bub was born , I think he charged $45 and I was only out of pocket by $11 from memory but I can't remember if it was medicare who paid or PHI. I now a number of obs who do it around here and also some peads.

I just called our PHI (GUHealth Corporate) and they will only cover it if it is done in hospital - they will not cover it if it is done in a Dr's surgery and only if you have premium level cover.

When did it first start getting done by Drs?
When Dad was a child in London everyone got it done by members of the Jewish community regardless of their religion. Maybe when birth moved into hospital circumcision did too?

So help me God, but I think the tomatoes are about to head my way...

...but circumcision is a medical procedure that holds with it the possiblity of serious complications. I'm quite glad it is now done by trained surgical practitioners.

While I will gladly acknowledge that there are probably Rabbis out there who perform very safe and competent circumcisions, I think that there is simply not enough supervision or regulation for the practice to be considered safe among non-medical staff.

Interesting point Michael. Do they have to undergo some training to be able to do it? I would assume they would have to have some idea of how to do it?

ETA - Dach, maybe there is a link between the two? Would be interesting to find out.

I'm not saying that it's a bad thing that it moved into hospitals Micheal, just wondering when.

Rabbis have been performing circumcisions for something like 6000 years Micheal, long before the department of health was established. TBH in the absense of a Dr I would trust my child's safety to a rabbi. In fact since some Rabbi's perform more circumcisions than I have hot dinners they might be a safer option.

ETA - Trillian, do you think any parent would entrust their baby to someone who didn't undergo training ;)

:

---

And more to the point - circumcision is still covered by Medicare. The site you posted earlier - it lists the rebates for the procedure.

---

Well, it seems the people in hospital - at least four that I can recall - gave us the wrong information. (Why does that not surprise me.)