Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 01:40:14 -0500
From: CircInfoNe@aol.com
Subject: Action Alert, 95.01.25, Australian Quack

MEDICAL OBSERVER, 20 JANUARY 1995
AUSTRALIA

YOUR LETTERS
The Kindest Cut?
Editor:  Anti-male circumcision propaganda seems to be gaining attention
largely because of the activities of a group called NOCIRC.

NOCIRC had its origins in California as an anti-circ lobby and was launched
on the Australian public on 8 August 1993.

Edgar J Schoen, chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on
Circumcision has written: 

"NOCIRC publishes a newsletter which has been attacking the procedure of
newborn circ for years.  It has never represented a scientific assessment of
the objective medical literature in this field which has increasingly shown,
particularly over the past decade, that newborn circ has multiple health
benefits that far outweigh the disadvantages of the procedure.  Rather,
NOCIRC has chosen to use distortions, anecdotes and testimonials to try to
influence professional and legislative bodies and the public to adopt their
point of view.

"Over the past few years, they have become increasingly desperate as the
medical literature has overwhelmingly chronicled the medical benefits of
newborn circ.  We are now at the point where newborn circ is analogous to
immunisation in that it prevents future disease at the cost of a safe, minor
procedure with a very low rate of complications.

"As this evidence has accumulated, NOCIRC has become increasingly more
outrageous  in their anti-circ stance.  Medical information which disagrees
with their position is ignored or distorted in favour of unsubstantiated
charges and anecdotes.

"NOCIRC is rapidly losing ground in this country.  As objective medical
information is being disseminated to the public on the benefits of newborn
circ, the circ rate has been steadily increasing.

"Perhaps NOCIRC has decided to export their 'message' to Australia since
their efforts are proving increasing [sic] futile in this country.

"When I was chairman of the AAP Task Force on Circ in the late 1980s we were
bombarded by inaccurate and misleading communications from NOCIRC pressing
their point of view."

Dr. George Williams's [sic] 'comment' piece in "Medical Observer (27 May
1994) is just one such instance of inaccurate and misleading communication.
 To put the article in perspective, one must not that he signs himself as
"Organiser of NOCIRC."

A standard ploy is to claim:  "Circumcision rates are falling -- he'll be the
odd one out."

Williams's first paragraph states the circ rate in the US as being "in the
order of 50-75%".  Researchers from Rochester General Hospital and the
University of Rochester found that "Circs are performed on about 86% of
newborn males".   In the same paragraph Williams says the Australian rate is
25%, but in a letter to Dr. Wright (Courier mail, 31 Oct. 94) he says Health
Insurance Commission figures "indicate the national rate is 11.9%".  In fact,
the HIC says that figure represents only the tip of the iceberg and that the
real figure is more like 40% -- and rising!

A standard NOCIRC ploy is to belittle the parents' reasons for requesting
circumcision.

Williams says the benefits claimed included 'improved sexual performance,
pleasing aesthetic appearance, mature sexual identity".  Conveniently, he
left out reduce risk of phimosis, balanoposthitis, syphilis, herpes, candida,
gonorrhaea, HIV seroconversion and AIDS. 

In a recent study in Australia, 80% of parents mentioned health, hygiene or
medical experience as reasons for circ.  Perhaps NOCIRC has underestimated
the intelligence of the Australian population.

Williams says:  "The long-term effects of infant circ have not been
evaluated."  Untrue -- it has been shown to be beneficial on an ongoing basis
from infancy to old age.

Dr. Terry Russell
Upper Mt Gravatt, Qld

WRITE YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS QUACK:

MEDICAL OBSERVER
LEVEL 2, 100 BAY ROAD
WAVERTON, NSW 2060
AUSTRALIA