Circumcision debate

In news set to divide parents across the nation, a study published by the University of Sydney suggests that young boys who aren’t [circumcised]( |target="_blank") are, in fact, an 80 per cent risk of “foreskin-related condition” that will need to be tended to by a doctor.

Not only that, but lead researcher, Dr Brian Morris, says that the benefits of early [circumcisions]( |target="_blank"|rel=”nofollow”) in baby boys is comparable to childhood vaccinations.

“Over their lifetime more than one in two uncircumcised males will suffer an adverse medical condition caused by their foreskin,” he says, as reported by

“The enormous benefit but low risk makes early infant circumcision akin to childhood vaccination.”

Dr Morris and his fellow researchers came to this finding after measuring the level of protection male circumcisions have against STIs, urinary infections and genital-related cancers.

“Routine circumcision of infant males is not permitted in New South Wales public hospitals,” Mother & Baby’s go-to midwife, Megan Baker, clarifies.

“Current evidence-based practice suggests that the procedure is unnecessary. Parents can enlist a private paediatrician to perform the procedure once the baby is discharged from hospital. In most cases, this is done for religious reasons.”

“The research would have to be very strong in favour of [circumcision]( |target="_blank") to convince me. It's an unnecessarily harsh procedure for an infant.”

What do you think? Do you think circumcision should be available as a choice for all new parents and their sons? Tell us by commenting on our Facebook page.