According to a recent magazine article : -

"A group of Australian doctors is campaigning for a
return to routine circumcision, citing research that
shows it protects men from a range of diseases,
including two forms of cancer (penile and prostrate),
urinary tract infections and a range of sexually
transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS and the
human papilloma virus (HPV), which can lead to cervical
cancer in their female partners."

Professor Brian Morris, Professor of Medicine at Sydney
University said recently that "The evidence in favour
of infant circumcision is now so strong that advocating
this simple, inexpensive procedure for baby boys is
about as effective and safe as childhood vaccination."

I would be interested to read posters views on the topic.

<<I would be interested to read posters views on the topic>>

Circumcision is not a medical issue but a question of values and morals - that is, unless one's specific values are to "ask the doctors".

Doctors are only trained in keeping human bodies alive and physically healthy for as long as possible, otherwise their views are as good or as bad as anyone else's. They have therefore no right to advocate anything to the general public, but only to those who seek their advice out of belief that it is of value.

Lexi,
You are a game girl. The last time this was raised here on OLO it attracted some 13 pages of comment. See link.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13123&page=0#226858

I did scroll through and noted many posters I had not seen before and I have not since.

I have no opinion, it is for parents to decide.

Lexi,

Morris has had this hobby horse a long time. (Pauling was funny for Vitamin C, so what?)

The Australian medical fraternity have not taken up his position, over many years so far. I suspect the only reason circumcision persists so much in America is Religio/political.

Morris has a web page on the topic.

I wonder what his religious affiliations are? There is no other single correlate for circumcision remotely as compelling.

Rusty

Circumcision has always been done for safety, not 'personal preference'. In more moral times Doctors promoted it for 'hygene' reasons, because you couldn't go about saying that it would reduce the risk of Syphilis Ghonereah and other Sexuak diseases. So they said "hygene"

Yes we do have antibiotics and condoms... But how many men use condoms every time? How many women use the "female condom"?

Yes we have some treatments for AIDS, but not a cure.

Many STDs have no symptoms for some people, yet they can still kill or cause permanent infertility eventually.

All of these diseases are still dangerous and in 20 years when today's babies are adults, I am sure that they will still be here and still dangerous.

Circumcision is about protecting health.. that's all. It has nothing about personal preterence or morals.

As a circumcised man, and as father of young boys, it is a good thing.

It seems we already have the hysterics out and about.

Part time parent:
IN more "moral" times, doctors routinely did things that are "unethical" now, including coddling the "gentle sensibilities" of overly religious twits rather than use proper terminology.

"Hygiene" is having the wit to avoid sex with a diseased partner, to avoid the contamination in the first place. The presense of a foreskin will save you one time in a hundred at best, luck will save you even more times than that, followed by condoms and abstinence. If you or your kids think circumcision will help, you are sadly mistaken.

Circumcision has everything to do with preference, and not that of the subject. In fact it seems to have *everything* to do with the preference of the imposer, not the recipient *or* their parents.

As an uncircumcised father of uncircumcised boys, with an uncircumcised father and two uncircumcised grandfathers, I think any enforcement of circumcision is ridiculous, personally offensive, and medico/legally and ethically indefensible in a culture with *much* bigger and more cheaply addressed health issues.

Rusty