Hi Celivia,

But 'potential' medical benefits are not the same as actual established medical benefits.

True but I still believe that preventative medicine is worthwhile.

"There might be a benefit for males living in countries where there's lack of hygiene and lack of condoms such as parts of Africa, but in a country like Australia I have not come across an article that points out a definite medical benefit."

I believe the push of medical associations in sub-saharan Africa is more driven by the prevalence of AIDS then the personal hygiene of Africans. The condom issue would be more relevant but I haven't heard of that before. The relevant medical associations usually talk about the effectiveness of circumcision. That could interplay with either a lack of condoms or an unwillingness to use them or other factors so I'll just take your word for that.

"I think that without a consensus about definite medical benefits, it is unethical to perform circumcision because a baby cannot give consent. Until there is a significant reason for circumcision, it needs to be a decision that every adult (18+) male will have to make for themselves."

Do you take the same view on immunisation? The alternative is that parents are charged with making decisions for babies until they are old enough and it is unethical to deprive children of the best medical care available. Indeed I believe that in International Law that is considered a fundamental right. Personally I struggle with the idea of exposing male babies to medical risk just to hold off for that reason. For example circumcision provides about a 90% protection against UTIs. From memory male babies are most likely to get them under 1 year of age. An 18 year old can't do much to protect themselves from something that historical. For me it would feel like an abdication of responsibility but I respect the opinion of any parent who feels otherwise.

Re the debate on fluoridisation, the answer has to be whatever works best. I suppose there could be an argument made that we don't know what the full effects of adding fluoride to the water supply has on the human body over the period of a lifetime, say.

Not that I have a strong view one way or another on adding fluoride.

There's another solution, of course. But it probably won't happen any time soon. Drop the junk, sugary diets and eat natural foods which enhance teeth mineralisation. Then fluoride and all the other vitamins and additives could be safely dispensed with.

Hi Celivia!

Circumcision? Where's James?

I can't agree with it. I mean, the good lord gave men a foreskin... actually I don't believe in god. Hey maybe we should routinely remove all organs that we don't see the need for that may cause ill health somewhere down the track.

Sort of a baby-light.

Or maybe sell rights to perform circumcisions to budding feminists in the gender studies courses at university. Could make a fortune.

But to the topic. Any dentist would be against fluoride in the water.

All that needs to be said really.

Like a tow truck owner... ripping up stop signs... this thread is.

Celivia,

While the benefits of circumcision with respect to health are minimal, there are no negative consequences of this practise. (unless the hand ful of botched procedures world wide is included)

The other positive benefits are that there is improved sexual stimulation, and social perception of hygene. While many women don't care whether the man has been circumcised, there are also many that do.

To the questions
Is it safe, simple and relatively painless?
will the child be better off with it? (even slightly)

The answers to both are yes.

Considering that as a child the procedure is relatively painless the suggestion that it is deferred until 18 when it is exceptionally painful is ridiculous. Similarily without evidence of trauma or negative consequences, the charge of child abuse is completely without substance.

mjpb, "You say that no national medical organisation in the world recommends the procedure be routinely performed on infant boys and gave a link to the website of a group who oppose it."

You misrepresent me by omission, I directed you to a listing of the Position Statements of Medical Societies in English-Speaking Countries. Did you find the listing for Australia?

It was sneaky putting circumcision in with vaccination and fluoridation, however routine circumcision has no scientific support whatsoever in Australia.

Cornflower said "It was sneaky putting circumcision in with vaccination and fluoridation, however routine circumcision has no scientific support whatsoever in Australia."

And that, mjpb and Shadow Minister, is all I have been saying, too. I would have no problem with the issue if there was actual scientific evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks in Australia.
All I'm asking is- give me an update on scientific evidence because I have not been able to find any.

There is scientific support that fluoridation reduces dental cavities.

Of course, fluoridation should not take the place of dental health care and education about the care of teeth.
But in a country like Australia, where dental health doesn't even have a place in our Medicare system, and where many people have no access to regular dental services like routine check-ups, cleaning and fluorite treatments, it makes sense to prevent cavities as much as possible.

There is, btw, scientific consensus that the benefits of immunisation clearly outweigh the slight risk.

Besides, immunisation and fluoridation are, unlike circumcision, not about mutilation of a body part but about saving bodies and body parts.