In Australia, registered medical practitioners must conform to regulation specified under Health Practitioner National Law, including advertising.
Section 133 prohibits the use of misleading or deceptive information to promote services.
We monitor and review all known circumcision provider websites and conduct assessments concerning national law specifications. In instances where the information does not conform, we report the details to the Australian Health Regulation Agency (AHPRA) for corrective action.
Our intervention has resulted in multiple providers removing false or misleading statements in relation to claimed benefits from circumcision.
Many providers specify they will not perform circumcision beyond the age of 6 weeks due to increased cost and risk of complications.
This is a period of life where the necessity for circumcision as a legitimate medical intervention is non-existent.
This is a form of time-pressured solicitation that is intended to pressure parents to circumcise even in the absence of a medical condition that would warrant the procedure.
Common marketing methods observed by circumcision providers include understating the harms and risks of the procedure, overstating the benefits and omitting any benefits from having intact genitals.
Given some providers are willing to publicly deceive and mislead through advertising, it is not unreasonable to assume this also occurs during consultation.
If you feel you were misled or presented with information that is deceptive in nature, we encourage you to take action by engaging with the Office of the Health Ombudsman, the Medical Council of NSW or the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. (Resources)
The following examples demonstrate the result of CLR intervention
Claims the preference of women during sexual intercourse justifies the circumcision of healthy new-born babies. (grossly unethical)
Significantly overstates benefit from performing an irreversible genital surgery on a healthy child for the purpose of their monetary gain. (deceptive, misleading and unethical)
Claims better hygiene justifies harmful genital surgery on healthy children. (deceptive and unethical)
Claims excruciating pain is not harmful to new-born babies (extremely unethical)
Forced to remove advertising that specifies circumcision without anaesthetic. (extremely unethical)