Australian Infant Foreskin Amputation

In Australia the rise of circumcision followed the British example, but the practice endured longer and affected a greater proportion of boys. Since most doctors were British, were educated in Britain or received their medical training in Australia from British teachers, it is not surprising that they reproduced the orthodoxies of their colleagues and mentors. In the late nineteenth century circumcision was recommended principally as a cure for spermatorrhoea in men and as a preventive of masturbation and nervous complaints in the young, but around 1900 the need to treat "congenital phimosis" in infants and boys and provide protection against the later possibility of venereal disease became paramount. The incidence of circumcision rose sharply between 1910 and 1920 as the First World War intensified fears of syphilis, and by the 1920s most doctors and child care manuals urged early circumcision as the act of a responsible parent. It was at this time that the practice of routinely circumcising normal baby boys before they left the hospital became common. Greater social equality, a less rigid status system and higher living standards are the social factors which probably explain why this advice was followed by parents across the social spectrum, not principally among the upper classes as in Britain.

Although Britain itself dropped routine circumcision in the late 1940s (and New Zealand in the 1950s), Australia followed United States practice, and the figure rose steadily to a peak of about 85 per cent in the mid-1950s, before falling back again: down to 50 per cent by 1975, and only 10 per cent by 1995.

Another significant factor in both the rise and decline of circumcision was the medicalisation of childbirth. In the late nineteenth century the practitioners of the new scientific medicine consolidated their position as the only legitimate source of medical advice and treatment, and by the 1920s the Australian medical profession had achieved a nearly unchallenged dominance over the supply of personal health services [1]. In the process, and with a little help from state legislation, they drove out alternative practitioners, and the rising specialism of obstetrics gradually displaced the midwives who had traditionally looked after women giving birth. In this context the decision of the Commonwealth Government, in 1912, to pay a maternity allowance (a generous 5 pounds) was also important. Expectant mothers tended to use the money to buy medical attendance at their confinement, thus bringing more doctors onto the childbirth scene and ensuring that more women gave birth in a hospital rather than at home. The proportion of births supervised by a doctor, at 63 per cent, was already quite high by 1913, but by 1935 it had increased to 83 per cent. [2] These developments have often been seen as vital factors in the decline of childbirth mortality, but in 1929 a study by Janet Campbell found that midwives actually lost fewer babies than doctors. [3]

Doctors were thus in a highly strategic position: being on the spot, if they thought that the baby ought to be circumcised, there was a very good chance that he would be, and for fifty years or so he usually was. But if this medical dominance [4] can help to explain the rapid rise of neonatal circumcision between the First and Second World Wars, it also helps to explain the rapid decline of the practice in the 1970s and 80s. Once doctors had decided that circumcision was a bad idea, they were in an equally strong position to ensure that the operation was not performed. This point is also relevant to the slowing (and in some states, the slight reversal) of the decline in circumcision incidence in the late 1990s. By this time the medical profession had lost its monopoly position, and parents were increasingly exposed to an often bewildering array of alternative sources of advice on health and child care issues - women's and parenting magazines, informal mothers' groups, websites, bulletin boards and endless reports and commentary in the media etc. Among this flood of information, both old and new circumcision enthusiasts have been able to spread their alarmist message.

More on Australian Foreskin Amputation History:
http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=ca...

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Australian
• infant
• circumcision

[EnoFrisk]

The difference between circumcision on an infant and circumcision on an adult is consent. The question that needs to be answered before proceeding with any non necessary surgery is who has the right to consent?

Circumcision on an adult without consent is an assault, Circumcision on an infant or child is ethically wrong, they cannot consent and they do not consent.

[alnot01]

I salute the Australasian common sense pervading this video, a common sense that simply eludes Americans obsessed with the helmet look.

Circ removes the most sensitive parts of the male body, reducing male pleasure for sure and female pleasure often. It reduces foreplay options and detracts from lubrication. It facilitates jackrabbit intercourse, and exacerbates vaginal dryness. A few circs are major sexual disasters.

[alnot01]

@wrangler1974 : Williams has paid a price for his common sense. When Williams argued that clinical trials conducted in Africa do not shed light on whether Australian baby boys should be cut, he was called racist and Brian Morris chimed in.

[alnot01]

@lexichronicle2 : the problem with making your wishes come true is the existence of Judaism and Islam. But the Koran is silent about circ. Islamic traditions emerged in a place and time where soap and water were not an option. Most Jews are not Biblical literalists. Both religions could put ritual circ behind them. When they do, circ will die in the West.

[lexichronicle2]

@alnot01 Someone in the UK is suing the doctor who circumcised him with the argument being that it was needless and irreversible surgical alteration without consent. I'm 100% behind him.

Circumcision of infants should be entirely illegal. If they want it done when they're older fine. Imagine cutting a toe off a child. How long is that argument going to last in court? You'll be straight off to the fruit cake farm.

Watch some videos of it being done. It's fking horrendous!

[alnot01]

@BillyDTeacher : In Australia, New Zealand, and France, general anesthesia has to be used after the 1st birthday. The boy was not complaining of operative pain, but post-op pain.

A few boys spared the snip at birth get it done later in childhood or even the teen years, for real or imagined problems. Around 2000, the UK medical association discovered that 4% of UK boys were getting snipped in childhood. They set a goal of reducing that 2%.

[BillyDTeacher]

@alnot01

Thanks for the information why do they do it so late?

Also do they put the kids to sleep before doing it?

Thanks

[alnot01]

@BillyDTeacher : The interviewed boy was circumcised around age 4 or 5, hence he remembered it.

[BillyDTeacher]

Hi: The boy they talked to in the video had to be at least nine or ten I guess. I was wondering how he could recall what happen to him as an infant. Did he have a later circumcision? I am not at all saying babies don't feel pain I just don't think a boy could recall it unless like I said he had one later in l childhood. Thanks for any answers any of you have