Routine neonatal circumcision of males is not supported by peak Australian medical bodies, including the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (Division of Paediatrics and Child Health) (RACP). The RACP position paper stated that:
After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand. However it is reasonable for parents to weigh the benefits and risks of circumcision and to make the decision whether or not to circumcise their sons. (Position paper)
This recommendation is consistent with policies from other peak medical bodies across the world, including the British Medical Association, the Canada Pediatric Society, the Royal College of Surgeons of England and the Royal Dutch Medical Association.
The Australian Safety & Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures — Surgical (ASERNIP-S) review of circumcision conducted by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (ASERNIP-S report 65) found no indications for routine neonatal infant circumcision of males.
These two studies indicate that there are no therapeutic indications for routine neonatal circumcision of males.
Additionally, a recent study by the Tasmanian Law Reform Commission raises many questions about the ethical and legal ramifications of routine neonatal circumcision of males, in the absence of a therapeutic indication.
Given these facts and that the Medicare Benefits Schedule is intended to fund procedures where there is a proven therapeutic need and outcome, the funding of routine neonatal circumcision of males in the absence of therapeutic indication is a poor use of public monies. Parents who wish to circumcise their neonatal sons should bear the full cost of doing so, without support from public funding.