Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Aussie/NZ Doctors Cave to Anti-Circumcision Fanatics

According to The Age, a Melbourne newspaper, the Australia/New Zealand college of physicians is not yet ready to do the obvious -- recommend the circumcision of all baby boys. Anti-circumcision fanatics have been more successful on that continent than in the USA, dropping the number of healthy, clean-cut boys over the last twenty years.

Here's the article from its June 6 paper with my comments in boldface:

"THE Royal Australasian College of Physicians has flagged it will not change its policy against circumcision despite evidence the procedure can prevent the spread of HIV and other sexual diseases." [How much medical evidence do these docs need?]

"The college, which represents physicians and pediatricians in Australia and New Zealand, has adopted the position that "there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision" since 2004." [A bad decision in 2004, but much worse in 2009.]

"But it has been reviewing this stance in part following recent scientific research suggesting that the risk of HIV infection could be dramatically reduced by the practice. Three trials conducted in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda between 2005 and 2007 showed conclusively, according to the World Health Organisation, "that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60 per cent". [Repeat, docs, circumcision cuts the risk of HIV by 60% -- what are you waiting for? 100%?].

"Further research, published this year in the New England Journal of Medicine, has found that circumcision can reduce the transfer of human papillomavirus — the chief cause of cervical cancer in women — by 35 per cent, and herpes simplex virus — the chief cause of herpes — by 25 per cent." [So, on top of the HIV reduction, it cuts cervical cancer in women by 35% and herpes by 25%, and you Aussie/NZ docs still won't acknowledge the obvious?]

"The journal said the findings underscored "the potential public health benefits of the procedure". The college, which began its review in 2006 and was supposed to come out with a revised policy at the end of 2007, will not do so until the end of this year, as it considers the new evidence." [Better late than never, but what are you waiting for?]

"It is estimated that 10 to 20 per cent of male infants are circumcised in Australia." [Ewww, the thought of so many filthy foreskins in Australia should make us all sick, especially their future female partners].

"The chairman of the college's panel considering the issue, David Forbes, of the University of Western Australia's school of pediatrics, said the African studies had delayed the new recommendation, but so too had the fact "it is a contentious and non-clear-cut issue". [It's only contentious for the foreskin lovers who won't recognize medical evidence.]

"It's quite clear that there's evidence that circumcision in adult males helps prevent HIV in Africa," said Professor Forbes. "It's not so clear that circumcision in Australia in infants is of benefit to the infants or the community. Policy is about getting the right message to health planners so that we have safe but cost-effective expenditure." [The best time to circumcise is at birth, folks. Safer, cheaper, faster, pain-free, cleaner. Everyone knows that.]

New concerns about the practice of circumcision in Australia were raised last week after the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute found that parental consent might not be enough to protect the circumcisers of baby boys from later legal action. [Another distraction by the foreskin lovers. Since when can parents not consent to life-saving medical procedures for their children?]

No specific laws regulate the removal of the foreskin. [The biggest improvement would be a law to require circumcision before entering school, as a public safety measure like vaccinations.]

Professor Forbes said he wanted to have the college's position "finalised by the end of this year, hopefully before". [Again, better late than never].

"He said the benefit of reducing human papillomavirus "appears not to be such an issue in Australia" because a vaccine was being produced. And there were important differences between the HIV situation in Africa and Australia: HIV rates in Australia were far lower and condom use was much higher." [HIV rates are lower in Australia because the previous generation, now sexually active, were circumcised at birth. With so many young boys now afflicted with a foreskin, those rates will change by 2020].

"He said while there was clear evidence that circumcision reduced the rate of urinary tract infection, this alone did not justify routine use of the procedure as the infection rate was so small.
He said the 10-strong panel consisted of pediatricians, surgeons and policy and public health experts. "There are extremely strong views at both ends of the spectrum for those who promote circumcision and those who oppose it," he said." [Yes, another benefit of circumcision, the reduction of UTI. The list of benefits goes on and on and on, but Aussie docs ignore them].

"Undertaking elective surgery of minors who are not able to consent is for many pediatricians an even bigger issue, especially when there are examples of (Muslim) societies who elect to have it at puberty when people can choose." [This 'consent' issue is another red herring raised by the anti-circ fanatics. What about parental rights and responsibilities to keep their children healthy?]

"Dr Forbes declined to preview what the college's recommendation would be. "Policy change tends to be evolutionary, not revolutionary, and given that there are no trials of neonatal circumcision for prevention of HIV, I wouldn't expect revolutionary change. I would expect evolutionary change." [Just follow the science, dudes].

"Roger Short, from Melbourne University's department of obstetrics and gynaecology, hopes the college will view circumcision in a more favourable light. "It would be exciting to see the Royal College come forward with a slightly more progressive attitude than its previous pronouncements," he said. "The evidence is coming in, and it is irrefutable, that there are major benefits." [Thank you, Dr. Short. You're a doc who speaks the truth on the science].

"Professor Short said there were no grounds for making circumcision mandatory." [Well, I disagree about this. Circumcision should be required for all boys, with exceptions for the obvious conscientious religious objection].

Instead, the college should change its recommendation. "I think we should go from saying 'when in doubt, don't circumcise' to 'when in doubt, do'." [Absolutely. So Aussie/NZ docs, just do it].


  1. i was cut at 18 and cannot believe why this isnt just done at birth. its much better and is just as sensitive.

    whats the delay?

  2. Why are people trying to support the circumcision of minors who are not sexually active and dengrating those who work to protect children from this practice which are known to be physically, sexually and psychological harmful. Circumcision at birth entered the history books in Europe decades ago and The British Medical Association states that it is harmful. Those who promote circumcision of children are the fanatics. Tommorrow I have been invited to present the psychological effects of this practice on children to psychiatrists and counsellors in Ireland perhaps you should ring them up and try to cancel the meeting.

  3. perhaps you should look at the evidence and see that there are heaps of health benefits that can save mens lives. circumcision is nowadays done with anesthetic so there nothing to worry about painwise.

  4. Mike this has got nothing to do with pain it is about the removal of sexually erogenous tissue from the bodies of minors without the childs of their parents informed consent. Ask any European women as we have rarely seen a circumcisied penis and our partners are not dying and we have uch lower rate of all sexually transmitted diseases thn circumcising cultures. I have been publishing in this area for of child health for 13 years how long have you been?

  5. "Circumcision should be required for all boys, with exceptions for the obvious religious conscientious objection".

    How about "You go anywhere near my son's penis and I swear to God I'll knock your block off!" Is that conscientious enough?

    And what if the penis's owner grows up to decide he has a conscientious objection to having the most sensitive part of his penis cut off - as more and more are doing?

    And Provoking, you're still being seduced by raw percentages. Circumcision might reduce Lichtenstinean swamp fever by 99.9%, but if only one person in 10 million ever gets it (one in 10 billion if they're circumcised), there's not a lot of point in circumcising even a single baby to prevent it, let alone all of them.

  6. it is a phallacy that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. i know this because i was circumcised at 18 and orgasm is more intense and much better than being uncircumcised.

    sorry linda, but you woek for an organisation that has little interest in seeking the truth, only pushing a point of view that is contrary to scores of studies.
    even when there is irrifutable evidence to support circumcision you people still dont accept it and keep pushing what is turning out to be more and more of a joke.

  7. You're a sample of one, Mike, and you chose to have yourself circumcised, so you were expecting benefits.

    "Orgasm is more intense" - what makes you assume that that is what everybody wants? How about an orgasm that goes on and on? How about the pleasures of the journey, being able to enjoy the semsations from your foreskin on the way to orgasm? How about being able to use the feedback from your foreskin to rein back the onset of orgasm, so you can wait for your partner? What does an 18-year-old know about the subtleties of sex? How about when you grow old and need every bit of sensation you can get?

    Bravo to your parents for leaving you the choice!

  8. oh hugh,

    have you experienced being uncircumcised then you had a circumcision?

    i have GREAT sex now, just as i did b4 i had the circ.

    the fact is that being circumcised is great and all of what you say is cute and makes for good reading but is untrue and designed solely to scare people into not circumcising, feeling guilty, or to manipulate men into thinking they have been damaged which is not true.

    i have had it both ways and being circumcised is much much better and just like millions and millions of men i would never have it any other way.

  9. Mike you are wrong I established a charity and work on a consultancy basis with the health service in Ireland. Your idea that your sexually experience is enhanced by the removal of part of your penis is a personal view and was a personal choice. The circumcision of minors is a different thing altogether.
    From a personal perspective living in a culture were most women have never seen a circumcisied penis, every female I have asked including myself finds that the drying kerantized penis which is the end result of circumcision is extremely unconfortable and that men who have been circumcised either suffer from premature ejaculation or prolonged uncomfortable thrusting to achieve orgasm. That's why there is such opposition to this nonsense in cultures which rarely do this we know the value of an intact male.

  10. what a joke.

    it is a personal view that is held by many men, who were cut as adults that it is better.

    all the women i have asked dont like smegma and 95% of women i have talked to prefer circumcised.

  11. mike, your sample is still extremely small and unscientific. Women often tell men what they know the men want to hear.

    If men want to have the most sensitive part (or any, or all!) of their penis cut off, that is their choice and they're welcome to it. Many other men say getting cut as an adult was the worst mistake they ever made.

  12. Penectomy and castration reduce the chance of getting HIV and other STDs by almost 100%. Why aren't the docs advocating that?
    Why aren't YOU advocating that?

  13. Mike

    You may also like to know that men in uncircumcisied cultures have never heard of smegma and I totally agree with Hugh. I have asked women who have slept with a circumcisied man why they did not tell them about the lack of lubrication and the lack of sensitivity they say they were too sad to tell them. You must have been speaking to women who either won't tell you the truth of who sadly have never slept with a complete man.

  14. the foreskin is not the most sensitive part of the penis.

    leading men to think that being uncircumcised means the are 'whole' is just wrong, it leads that there is something wrong with being circumcised, and there just isnt.

    most circumcised men are greatful they were circumcised at birth, only a very very small minority (most of whom have been manipulated by no-circ into thinking they were damaged) are 'unhappy' being circumcised.

  15. MIKE you are wrong the anatomy of the human penis clearly demonstrates that the foreskin is the most densely nerve laden part of the penis.

    Ashleigh Mntague a famous anatomist descibed the removal of the foreskin as a serious injury.

    You were also ciurcumcised as a fully devloped male and that is clearly different from the e not fully developed and their loss may and probably is much greater than yours.

    I have been to numerous human rights conferences on male and female cirumcision and provide consultancy advice in this area.

    3 days ago I met with Psycholgists and psychiatrists who already deal with traumatised families none had ever heard of NOCIRC however they confirmed that children have complained about this produre to them.

    You are clearly out of touch with the current sexual, psycholgical and anatomical research in this area and the process of denial for those circumcised as babies.

  16. I welcome this exchange even if I think these anti-circ arguments are whacky! Nothing is more condescending and demeaning that anti-circs trying to suggest that perfectly normal males like Mike (and me) are sexually and psychologically "harmed" because of our circumcised penises. But this is what their argument always comes down to [see above comments]. Rather than dispute the growing number of medical studies that prove that the circumcised male is both healthier himself and for his sexual partner, they try to play "mind games." Linda's claim that I, circumcised at birth at 12 hours, "probably" have a greater "loss" than Mike who was circumcised later is such BS that you can't help but me angry at the insult. But that's what the foreskin lovers want -- anything to distract you from the medical evidence of the benefits of a foreskin-free society. Well, let the debate continue. We will not be distracted from the truth!

  17. you ignore the evidence that the foreskin has value. Ashleigh Montague was as you may well know a world renowned scholar and anatomist and he clearly states on camera in "Whose Body, Whose Rights a film by Tim Hammond that the removal of the foreskin was and I quote " a serious injury". Your name calling does not work with me you are a fanatic obsessed by removing a normal, natural and highly exquisite piece of sexually erogeonus issue from the bodies of minors. Why you would want someone to suffer the same injury as yourself needs an evaluation of your psychological well being. You have been distracted from the normal anatomy of the male by living in a circumcising culture and as I said before circumcision is so rare in Europe that most omen have never seen a circumcisied penis and when they do they are horrified that this was done to another person in childhood. I really do not understand why you should be at all upset or insulted by what I am saying. However you continually ignore certain facts. Please tell me what you know about the anatomical and sexual function of the male and the female foreskin and then we can have a considered debate? If you know nothing tell me and I will educate you.

  18. LMAO. Linda, you accuse ME of "name-calling" and then you say, "you are a fanatic" because I support universal circumcision. Let's be clear here. It's the anti-circs who march on Washington with their signs and pictures of penises. It's the anti-circs who call us "butchers" and "child abusers." It's the anti-circs who say the supporters of circumcision (to quote Linda) "need an evaluation of our psychological well being." WTF. Who is the real fanatic in this debate?

  19. Nobody has yet addressed my argument for penectomy and castration. Why aren't you advocating universal emasculation, since it reduces the chances of getting HIV by almost 100%?
    I support universal emasculation of all males! And female infibulation too, just in case you want to call me sexist.

  20. Lol I agree with PD.

    I am a former opponent of circumcision, but after doing some research, I feel that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.

    As for the function of the foreskin, circumcised men have reduced risk of sexual dysfunction and greater sexual satisfaction, so any sexual effect of the foreskin must not be so good!

    As for the nerves in the foreskin, most of the foreskin is not very sensitive. Part of the foreskin is quite sensitive, but the circumcision scar is also very sensitive and pleasurable for circumcised males, and the evidence doesn't support the idea that the foreskin is even beneficial to sexual pleasure, so either the foreskin has little or no positive effect on sexual enjoyment, or the nerves are able to essentially rewire themselves.

    And like Mike, I believe circumcision causes more intense orgasms. So what is there about circumcision to oppose?

  21. Ahem. What about penectomy?

  22. I have never marched on Washington but I would. I educate the health service in Northern Ireland on the harm of circumcision.

    The function of the forskin can be found here


  23. First, to be included in the study, men had to be HIV-negative and uncircumcised. The men also had to consent to "avoid sexual contact (except with condom protection) during the 6 weeks following the medicalized circumcision." The experimental group which underwent the circumcisions was given the following instructions"When you are circumcised you will be asked to have no sexual contact in the 6 weeks after surgery. To have sexual contact before your skin of your penis is completely healed, could lead to infection if your partner is infected with a sexually transmitted disease... If you desire to have sexual contact in the 6 weeks after surgery, despite our recommendation, it is absolutely essential that you use a condom. "So the males in the study that underwent circumcision were not only told to abstain from sex for a significant time period after the operation -- reducing their exposure time by six weeks compared to the uncircumcised (control) group -- but told to use condoms, taught how to use them, and educated about their benefits. During this six week period, the men in the uncircumcised group did not have the same restrictions. There also doesn't seem to be any mention of the researchers calling up the circumcised men after six weeks to say, "Okay, time's up. Ease up on the condom use from here on." The possibility that many of these men might have become accustomed to using condoms, armed with knowledge about their benefits, didn't seem to be much of a concern. And the stopped the study one third of the way throw before the circumcised men cot up with the uncircumcised. The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that newborn infants feel pain as much if not more then adults. Infants experience excruciating and traumatic pain during the 6 to 10 minute circumcision and for weeks afterwards some go in to a shock type coma. If you can stand to hear a baby scream in pain you can watch a baby being circumcised most are done with out anesthesia for fear it mite kill the baby http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQqOEylGW7k

  24. Would the "University Academic" who runs this blog care to expose exactly who he is? Really, show yourself. I suspect I know who you are—and that's the reason your hidden.

  25. Actually... I find it really funny that you demand someone to "show yourself" while using the name "Anonymous". You're an idiot.

    As for the removing the entire penis or testicles idea, you're also an idiot with an invalid argument. Either one of those two procedures would completely eliminate any chance for reproduction to occur, and one even eliminates the chance of intercourse occurring. Circumcision only removes one part that has not been proven to negatively affect intercourse. 1 nasty old, dried up woman complaining about it on a site doesn't prove anything.

    Although I can't say I agree with forcing everyone to circumcise their sons, I do believe that parents should be allowed to make the decision once properly educated in a non-bias form.

    To say that children are negatively affected in a psychological sense by the procedure cannot be proven. Nor can it be proven that circumcised men feel more or less pleasure during sex and orgasm. And, comparing a circumcision of a child to that of an adult is also ridiculous as both penises have developed under significantly different circumstances.

    As a 23 year old uncircumcised male growing up in Canada, I have not been surrounded by one or the other. therefore, my opinion cannot be considered influenced by the fact that all the men I've seen in my life have been circumcised(or not). Still, I have found that I have a preference for circumcised penises for several reasons.
    1. When using a condom, the condom doesn't go all over the place which happens with me as well as fellow "uncut" partners.
    2. When not using a condom, although more lubricant is required, the added friction from the shaft makes for significantly better sex. This can be found for myself as well when retracting the foreskin and keeping it held back during penetration.
    3. I personally feel that it looks better.
    4. It IS cleaner. I can't tell you how many times I, or a guy I was with, showered only a few hours prior to sex and even still there was either a faint smell or at the very least, the glans were quite moist. And sometimes a thin white layer, like a sprinkle of chalk, could be found on the glans or inner foreskin. Not a thick gooey build up of smegma by any means, but nevertheless, none of these are much of a turn-on.

    There are those that would say I have the option to have the procedure now, which is true. However, I say to those people that as an adult, I will now remember the procedure, I'll have to live with the pain for over a month as it heals, I will not be able to engage in anything sexual(including masturbation) for over a month, I will have to take time off work to heal AND I'll have to try to come up with over $1000 to have it done. Plus, have you seen one circumcised as an adult? It looks "fresh" for well over a year. That means that a man's sex life could be non-existent for over a year! Babies just lie there, not really doing much with the genitals for years regardless of whether the procedure is preformed or not.

    The AAP has never actually recommended that circumcision not be preformed, but has rather taken the stance that they cannot recommend it be routinely preformed on every male. That being said, as long as a local anesthetic is used, which it should be, there's nothing wrong with the procedure.

    The sad thing about all this, is that there are those that fight to stop people from making a choice that affects their own child, whether it be to force people to circumcise or to stop them. It's not more abusive to the child than giving them a name like "Gaylord".

    Anyway, thought I'd put in one more end to the debate.

  26. Ok, who ever said that circumsized felt better is fucking retarded.I was "circ'd" a couple years back, and the next time was the worst sex I ever had. I did more research and realized that the foreskin has more than 20,000 nerve endings, 5x more than the head. I removed the best part of sex and now I completely regret it. STAY INTACT BOYS!!!