The Forum > General Discussion > The circumcision debate.
The circumcision debate.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
Syndicate RSS/XML |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
My niece is expecting her first child and
she's being advised by her hospital to have
her baby boy circumcised when it is born
for health reasons. She came to me for advice.
Frankly I don't know that much about the pros
and cons - and hence this thread. Of course I
will do my research on the topic as best I can.
From what I do gather - there appears to be
some Australian doctors who are campaigning for
a return to routine circumcision citing research
that shows it protects men from a range of
diseases.
I read that - Dr Alex Wodak, a doctor based at St Vincent's
Hospital in Sydney and a member of the
Circumcision Foundation of Australia, says that parents
tend to be discouraged from the procedure by doctors who
haven't caught up with recent research showing the
benefits, including that uncircumcised men are three to
eight times more likely to catch HIV/AIDS and syphilis.
He says that with good pain relief, the baby doesn't
suffer, so there's no reason not to circumcise.
Dr Wodak says, "The benefits outweigh the risks by a
huge amount. The evidence is getting so strong and yet
the opposition is so strident, and the situation is
unfair for parents. They should be able to get fair
and balanced information, but they're not. It's a
simple procedure when its carried out on infants -
it's quick, it's painless, the benefits are considerable
and the risks very small."
I don't want to simply toss a coin - and I don't know what
to advise my niece just yet. I'm going to have to find out
more about what opponents of circumcision have to say -
and why.