It appears that those who endorse inflicting pain on other species continue to raise the argument on OLO that infant males can endure the pain of circumcision. That argument has long been refuted by medical experts.

A new survey shows that 97 percent of these doctors now learn effective pain relief techniques for circumcision, such as using a local anesthetic.

"This is a large leap ahead in how physicians are trained to perform circumcisions, which at 1 million annually, is the most common surgical procedure," says researcher Daniel Yawman, M.D., MPH, a pediatrician at Golisano Children's Hospital at Strong and Rochester General Hospital, in a news release. "There is no reason a newborn should have to endure the pain of circumcision without a local or topical anesthetic."

Researchers say the results show that the debate over whether babies feel pain during circumcision has ended. Since 1999, most major medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, have recommended the use of anesthetics to provide pain relief for infant circumcision.

I have indeed witnessed a fly-blown sheep and also a dog. Not a pretty sight that's for sure, though interestingly, the sheep had been mulesed.

However let's be clear here why Swedish traders have chosen not to purchase Australian wool.

That reason is due to the Australian livestock industry's refusal to use any pain relief for surgical procedures on livestock. The Swedes are not objecting to the actual procedures even though other surgical procedures used on livestock, without pain relief, by the Australian industry are too heinous to mention.

Therefore, let the hysterical livestock lobbyists and the equally hysterical politicians learn the hard way whilst their masters-of-spin foolishly try to prove that sadistic practices, perpetrated on livestock, have some cogency or validity.

Interesting question you've raised Steel. I had not thought of that.

*due to the Australian livestock industry's refusal to use any pain relief for
surgical procedures on livestock.*

Actually Dickie, your claim is false. Something like 17% of mulesed
lambs were treated with Trisolfen. But its a very new product and hard
to obtain. Farmers would use it, if it were more readily available.

What is true is that use of Trisolfen is not yet mandatory. But then
pain relief for human circumcision is not mandatory either, so your
animal ethics concerns are running ahead of human ethics concerns.

What is also true is that just over the border in Denmark, millions
of pigs are castrated without pain relief and the Swedes don't say
boo.

PF, I did a trial this year with a few merino lambs, leaving long
tails, unmulesed etc. The results were frankly a disaster with
lambs struck on their butts, that had been shorn a couple of months
earlier. I've had to cover them in chemicals, until the last of
them are off the place. It once again showed me why mulesing was
develeped in the first place, certainly not because it is fun.

What will happen now is that a market will develop for unmulesed wool.
Some farmers will see the $ signs and not mules their lambs. They
will cash in on the premium, meantime during harvest and other times,
or due to slack farming, or properties too large, or whatever,
I'll drive past those properties and see flystruck sheep dying
miserable deaths.

The law of unintended consequences can be quite severe and in this
case, how ever well naive people might have meant to do good, there
will be far more suffering of merino sheep then ever before.

All pretty sad really.

ABLOY is at least a partly Finnish company (the OY is a Finnish appellation equivalent to PTY LTD or the German GMBH (sakeyhtiö abb. to OY).

I do agree that the Swedes are a hypocritacal mob over mulesing.

As mentioned in the article, Sweden now has a rather large Muslim minority (so much for their "racial purity" ideals, there won't even be a "Swedish culture" soon) yet those Muslims have to be fed. Sweden bans "halal" killing of animals (along with the Jewish equivalent) so halal meat must be imported. Why don't they apply the same level of concern for animals in respect to those slaughtered to feed Swedish (or rather Turkish, Kurd, Arab etc since most seem to despise the country in which they have sought refuge) Muslims?

Frankly, I think Sweden is a country which departed for lah-lah land some time back and I won't knowingly buy any of their products.

The Vikings would be gyrating in their graves to see the way their once proud country has gone. They're now nothing but a nation of animal libber PC girlymen sissies busy handing over the keys of their nation to foreigners.

Well, there you have it. You really can find prejudice against any nation, practice, minority, gender or religion on these forums.

Anti-Swedish. Now they're 'sissies.'

Huh. I really didn't see that one coming.

As one who knows nothing about the rights and wrongs of this issue, I don't think the writer of this article does much to enlighten people.

Anti-Swedish rhetoric is hardly a rational basis for the measures called for. While the logic of one large part of the arguments stymies me. We should not buy Volvos (yeah. like I was in any position to do so anyway, but hey, I'll happily comply)because of Sweden's ww2 record and its alleged anti-humanitarian behaviour. Instead we should switch to Benz (have just ordered two) because they are made in Berlin? Wot the?

Racism and flawed logic are not likely to sway the greeny-lefty-whatever classes who are traditionally seen as the majority of the bleeding hearts sector in issues of this sort.

Having been in South Africa when boycotts were applied, I have seen how misguided they are: sure the idea is to hit the Big Boys in the pockets. However what happens is that the BB's just move on and the hundreds and thousands of little people who shore them up are the ones who suffer. RSA was already on the path to change when the boycotts started.

The violence and mayhem which has ruled ever since can be laid at least partly at the door of all the well-meaning people who caused unemployment, dispossesion, hunger, street children, vagrants, anger and hatred when thousands of the people they were supposedly helping went to the wall, while the white managers and CEOs just transferred out.

PS TRTL. My personal favourite was the girlyboy label.My imagination went overboard on that one!

Jonathan Ariel's bleeding heart lament, states:

"Stockholm’s indignation regarding mulesing is disingenuous. There are already moves afoot to replace mulesing with other procedures from 2011. What do the Swedes want to happen between now and 2011? For lambs to be denied mulesing and die a slow and mind-boggingly painful death?"

An equally disingenuous retort from Yabby:

"Actually Dickie, your claim is false. Something like 17% of mulesed
lambs were treated with Trisolfen. But its a very new product and hard
to obtain. Farmers would use it, if it were more readily available."

No Yabby it is not "a very new product" at all and you, a sheep farmer, clearly knows better. Fortunately, so do we!

"Dr Merideth Shiels the inventor of Tri-Solfen, when launching the product in September 2005, advised that the product would be available in the following month (Oct. 2005.)

"Dr Meredith Sheil, Animal Ethics: In the latest twist in the mulesing debate some Swedish retailers have agreed to resume buying wool from mulesed Australian sheep, after an emergency trip to Sweden by Dr Meredith Sheil, the inventor of the post mulesing pain relief spray Trisolfen.

"Ms Sheil has just returned from an emergency meeting in Sweden to meet with retailers of Australian wool and she says those retailers reported being 'confused and bemused' by the presentations on pain relief made by the Australian Wool Industry Taskforce several weeks ago.

"The Taskforce had claimed the retailers would only continue buying Australian wool if mulesing ceased but Ms Sheil says they were open to persuasion on pain relief options when she discussed the issue with them in detailed presentations."

In addition, PETA, the American animal welfare group, were also agreeable to mulesing continuing until 2010 providing Tri-Solfen was administered to lessen the animal's pain.

So what happened? Remember, this industry is known for its careless handling of the truth.

http://www.animalethics.net.au/news.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/tas/content/2006/s1670515.htm

Dr Matt Makin, National President of the AVA also advised that inflicting unnecessary pain on livestock is unacceptable:

http://www.animalethics.net.au/trisolfenspeechMM.pdf