Perhaps it is a good idea as the books may balance on the credit side, in later life, by avoiding the consequences to Medicare.

A snip in time.....

Snout

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

I agree with your point about hygiene and the lowered incidence of spread of some STD's.

Anecdotally, my experience confirms that, male circumcision if done correctly, has no deleterous effects on performance.

Provided male circumcision is an informed choice made by adult males I see no problem with this form of surgery.

Also, Snout, I appreciate that you (and some others) are able to see the distinction between male and female circumcision. I have no doubt that if male circumcision resulted in the same amount of pain and reduction in sexual response as it does for women, then it would be banned.

Where cultural practices are in direct violation of human rights, then I do not see granting the Sierra Leone athletes asylum as being paternalistic or imperialistic - which, as I understand it, was a concern raised by the author of this article.

Finally, infibulation for either sex is a violation and requires direct action such as supporting those who are in threat of such a barbaric practice.

Despite opinions to the contrary, it is not clear that circumcision is cost effective. This is what the Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney says:

"Circumcision may be done for cultural or religious reasons.  It is rarely needed for medical reasons. The risks of routine circumcision are believed to be greater than the potential benefits (see the Royal Australasian College of Physicians guidelines)."

http://www.chw.edu.au/parents/factsheets/circumj.htm

Perhaps it's time to snip the Medicare subsidy for this procedure and use the money saved on evidence-based medicine.

mg1333

I am interested in your opinion of the topic of this thread.

1. Do you believe that the Sierra Leone athletes be granted asylum, as they fear genital mutilation?

2. Are you not at all concerned that children (and adults) are abused and their lives ruined by genital mutilation?

Your point about male circumcision being funded by Medicare may have some foundation, however it is not on topic. Safe male circumcision is available in this country, in some cases it may be medically necessary (as in foreskin that doesn't fully retract); one of the benefits is that is does provide better hygiene. However, IT IS done safely and humanely - the issue is that genital infibulation is a violation of human rights and we, as a free and democratic country, need to take action on this obscene practice.

Do you have any thoughts at all on genital infibulation?

Maybe it's easier for many of us to have opinions on male cicumcision, because we're more likely to have personal or close anecdotal experience of this. And it was virtually inevitable that this off-topic subject would be commented on. But of course male circumcision almost always pales into insignificance compared to the horrible situation of female genital mutilation.

As I said previously, I wholeheartedly support the female athletes being able to stay in Australia, rather than the possibility of having this mutilation forced onto them.

In an endeavour to find out more about the horror which many females have forced onto them, I found this website:
http://www.members.tripod.com/~Wolvesdreams/FGM.html
A collection of ridiculous superstitions which is almost beyond belief. Although the operation is usually done on young girls, it's sometimes left until they are young women.

In regard to male circumstition, we can't excuse unnecessary genital mutilation on the grounds that it's not as bad as what happens to females. Just because a baby boy's foreskin will not easily retract, this does not necessarily mean that he requires circumcision. In almost all cases, this situation corrects itself. As for hygiene, it's no problem at all to wash behind the foreskin. I suppose that if I was bald, I would not need to use shampoo and if I was toothless, I would not need to clean my teeth. The same principle applies.

Removal of the foreskin results in one of the most naturally sensitive parts of a man's body becoming desensitised. This doesn't sound like a good idea to me. I suppose it could be said that no-one misses something which, to all intents and purposes, they never had. But all sorts of unnecessary bodily modifications could be falsely justified by saying that, couldn't they?

And why should Medicare, ie the taxpayers, subsidise superstition?

Australia is leagally and morally obligated to offer asylum to any one with genuine fear of persecution or oppression. It is a no brainer that female genital mutilation is a babaric form of persecution and oppression.

An interesting side line to this discussion is the fact that there is a refugee living in australia who is a victim of female genital mutilation she has been granted a bridging visa (D) that permits her to live in the community but does not provide her with medicare or entitle her to work consequently she is unable to see a gynocologist.

Consequently legislative change is necessary to ensure refugees on a bridging visa D are entitled to healthcare education and employment. While a morally accountable australian government is needed to insure a more humane and compassionate immigration policy.