Routine circumcision of male babies is generally regarded as usually medically unnecessary. Parents may have their child circumcised for cosmetic reasons, ie to look like the father. Or for religious reasons. Or for other personal reasons. But why should these personal choices be funded by the taxpayers?

Various jurisdictions around the world have ceased funding medically unnecessary male circumcisions. This fair and sensible policy is well overdue in Australia.

For an overview, have a look at:

http://www.norm-uk.org/

Better still, why have Medicare at all? Why should the fit have to pay the medical bills of the unhealthy? After all many of the unhealthy are so because they choose to lead an unhealthy lifestyle. We had a perfectly good health system before Hawke/Blewitt introduced this Medicare rort.

You are kidding arent you?

We certainly did NOT have a "perfectly good" system before Hawke introduced medicare.

Because my family couldn't aford to send me to specialists my choldhood astma wasn't correctly diagnosed untill I was 13. If caught earlier it may well have been more treatable. As it is still bothers me to this day.

On the issue of cosmetic surgery I could also say the same things about post cancer plastic surgery. And I don't just mean breast re construction either.

Well, I admit perfectly good is stretching the truth, but Medicare really irks me: I resent being forced by law to shell out substantial sums of money for the Medicare levy, in addition to being "forced" into private health insurance. I would prefer to opt out of the system and save my own health insurance.

Back to the topic: this is a very old debate and I thought it was a forgone conclusion that circumcision reduces disease risk? Sure, if every man washed his foreskin regularly and thoroughly there would be no need to circumcise, but that won't happen.

This is no different from female genital mutilation of young girls. I don't see how it will be changed due without some political leadership calling it for what it is.

"Sure, if every man washed his foreskin regularly and thoroughly there would be no need to circumcise, but that won't happen."

Well Robg, most Australians have access to a shower and could reasonably be expected to use it as necessary. Those who can't be bothered to take the quick and easy step of washing behind the foreskin are surely the unhealthy, unhygienic, unthinking minority. Maybe they're also the ones who don't wash their hands before eating and contaminate not only their own food but that of others as well at picnics, bar-b-cues, restaurant buffets etc. Maybe they use public swimming pools and don't bother to shower thoroughly first.

Most of us manage to shave, shampoo our hair and brush our teeth regularly, three things which take far more time and effort than simply cleaning behind the foreskin.

But regardless of this, the point I was making is why should the taxpayers be subsidising what is usually an unnecessary procedure?