Doctors to leave our baby boys intact.

[Fellow Traveler]

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.

Read more here.

[Claire and Boys]

I was just going to come and post this

[georgia]

That's great to read! Thank you so much for sharing

[benj]

now if it could only travel 9,500 miles.

[Fellow Traveler]

I forgot to add that I REALLY like the fact that the word intact is in the headline.

[benj]

Originally Posted by Fellow Traveler

I forgot to add that I REALLY like the fact that the word intact is in the headline.

yes, i agree. to me, "uncircumcised" sounds too much like unclean, unsanitary, uncivilized. it gives off too much of a negative connotation.

[Storm Bride]

The last paragraph still makes me want to throw up. Why on earth can't we promote condom use, instead of cutting off part of a penis??

[benj]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

The last paragraph still makes me want to throw up. Why on earth can't we promote condom use, instead of cutting off part of a penis??

yes, condom use and sexual education are better than cutting off body parts. i don't see what's wrong with a more educated society even if those studies were magically proven to be universal and true. but the best advice i ever got, and the best advice i can give to anyone is simple: know your partner.

[perspective]

"I think we should go from saying 'when in doubt, don't circumcise' to 'when in doubt, do'."

Wow this guy sounds kind of crazy. "When in doubt, perform surgery." Thats the opposite direction of where modern medicine is heading.


I also get quite confused for a second whenever a pro-circer is using the term "progressive" when it comes to their view point. Don't they know circumcision is the old practice created out of myth, and superstition? Don't they see things are clearly moving in the opposite direction?


This is a great article, and great news. I think the doctor who spoke about how policy changes, that could also be used to describe the end of infant circumcision. That change is not revolutionary, but evolutionary. We follow a long road of small steps to get to our goal. Today was another one of those steps. Today is another small victory, and we should celebrate it.:

[MommytoB]

that forbes guy must have not lived in usa and it is crazy for Who to take a policy on hiv reduction for when in reality usa has the highest hiv rate and most routinely circucmised males . At times i wish alot of those people to get a brain and once they did they would realize cultural decisions or family traditions should not be a medical procedure because 'doctors are the one who created this horror of circumcision' not families .

I find it odd and strange how aap described the foreskin right in 1984 and even stated it protect the glans, including to not worry about if not retracting by 5 ,10 or even older, even described smegma normal but somehow all that stuff disappeared !!!!!!!

i wonder why ???

[benj]

Originally Posted by perspective

"I think we should go from saying 'when in doubt, don't circumcise' to 'when in doubt, do'."

Wow this guy sounds kind of crazy. "When in doubt, perform surgery." Thats the opposite direction of where modern medicine is heading.


I also get quite confused for a second whenever a pro-circer is using the term "progressive" when it comes to their view point. Don't they know circumcision is the old practice created out of myth, and superstition? Don't they see things are clearly moving in the opposite direction?

yeah, roger short is an australian pro-circ doctor i think. that's not even the most crazy of one of his quotes. google him, but you're not gonna like what you see. i guess they wanted to put someone that opposed the position in the article so people wouldn't think it was "biased." of course, he just looks stupid...

[Seie]

HIV rates in Australia were far lower and condom use was much higher.

I still wish they would do a study on the correlation between condom use and circumcission. My theory is a circumcised male is less likely to use a condom - about time someone did a study on that..

[benj]

the problem with comparing HIV rates and circumcision rates is that it gives off the wrong message. circumcision, even if it were proven to be an effective preventative measure everywhere, is not the only way. HIV is transmitted different ways, and the public needs to be educated. circumcising, alone, will not prevent it. not just because the studies are not conclusive, but because of the lack of education and the culture.

[serendipity22]

Roger Short is a professor not a medical doctor.

There are 3 pro-circers appearing in the Australian media regular, one of them being Short.

The others are professor Brian Morris who is agitating for compulsory circumcision and Terry Russell who has circumcised many tens of thousands.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Seie

I still wish they would do a study on the correlation between condom use and circumcission. My theory is a circumcised male is less likely to use a condom - about time someone did a study on that..

I don't think they can do a valid study on that. People lie. Circ status can be visually confirmed, but there's no way to confirm whether someone did or didn't use a condom, no matter what they say.

Originally Posted by serendipity22

The others are professor Brian Morris who is agitating for compulsory circumcision and Terry Russell who has circumcised many tens of thousands.

WTF??? That's sick...really, really sick.

[needhelpplease]

It's not about likelihood to wear, but still pretty interesting:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7727577
"Factors associated with condoms slipping off were (1) young age, (2) being circumcised"

[needhelpplease]

Originally Posted by serendipity22

Roger Short is a professor not a medical doctor.

There are 3 pro-circers appearing in the Australian media regular, one of them being Short.

The others are professor Brian Morris who is agitating for compulsory circumcision and Terry Russell who has circumcised many tens of thousands.

I didn't know about him until I read this, I just thought it was Morris and Russell. Didn't like his part of the article, but overall it's good news :

I googled him, he's very old which is a positive. Apparently he's working on stopping HIV with lemon juice (if it's the same guy). He's from the UK though, so dunno why he's so pro-circ.

[hakunangovi]

"He's from the UK though, so dunno why he's so pro-circ. " Prior to 1949, when Douglas Gairdner's paper "The fate of the foreskin" was published, circumcision grew to be quite common in the U.K. After that the NHS stopped paying for it and the rate plummeted. If Short is an old man, then I guess he probably subscribes to the old, and outdated, theories.

I have an old aunt who lives in the U.K. and was a nurse all her life. I brought the subject up with her once, and was very saddenned to hear her say that she thought RIC was preferable, in case of problems later. I put her opinion down to the notion that she is a product of her time.