|
|
Worldwide Male Circumcision Rates |
1. Country by country, like Tony Acorn's (below). This led to the conclusion that "... circumcision is the norm among about 40% of the world's population
2. I also did it on a religious basis. "There are around 950 million Muslims, 14 million Jews and 48 million Coptic Christians ... about 1 billion, 19% of the world's population, whose males are all circumcised." Adding in non-religious circumcisions in the Anglo-Saxon countries we get up to 1.33 billion. There are then many minor groups - non-Muslim Africans & Filipinos, Polynesian islanders, and Europeans and Asians who have been circumcised for health or hygiene reasons. If we assume that these account for 10% of the remainder of the world, we get the figure of 33%.
James Badger
The World Health Organization have an excellent resource that discusses global circumcision rates. This official, scientific report confirms the worldwide circumcision rate is approximately 30%. It is available online as a PDF file.
'Tony Acorn, pseudonym of a straight academic with a sociological interest in circumcision, produced a study in which he estimated thatperhaps one male in four (25%), world-wide, is circumcised. His rationale was that about 25% of the world's population lived in countries where circumcision was between 75% and universal, a further substantial number lived where there were substantial circumcised populations (25 to 75%) and the remainder in areas where the rate was less than 25%, down to zero.
Group A: 75-100% males circumcised.
North and West Africa plus much of East Africa, eg Algeria, Cameroon, Chad, Dahomey, Egypt (Muslim and Christian), Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Kenya. Libya, Madagascar, Mali, Mauretania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Northern Uganda, Upper Volta, Zaire [NB, some of these now have new names but it would be a real surprise if most of the guys there had grown new foreskins as a result.). Plus the Islamic areas of Asia - Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Indonesia (largest Muslim nation), Iran, Iraq, Israel [OK not Muslim], Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, (Hindu minority about 10%), Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, UAE, Yemen (N+S). Plus Tonga and Samoa, with Canada and the US at the bottom end of the range.
25% of the world's population, average 87.5% cut = 22.75%
Group B (25% to 75% cut)
The rest of Africa, parts of Asia with sizeable Muslim populations ( for example, there are more Muslims in India than there are in Pakistan), the Pacific Islands.
25% of the world's population, average 50% cut = 12.5%
Group C (<25%)
Central and South America and the Caribbean. Europe (these days Britain comes at the top end of this group). Australia and NZ (not sure about that) Non-Islamic Asia (though there are sizeable [and circumcisable] Muslim populations there. USSR (remind me, where was that again?)
The anti-circumcision lobby like to bandy around "official" statistics that show the circumcision rate to have fallen in the USA. What they conveniently fail to point out is that the "official" rate has only fallen significantly in California and Florida, which both have high immigrant populations (from South America where circumcision is not the norm). Figures from these two States cause the overall rate for the whole country to be lower, but in most of the USA the rates are steady.
Another factor is that there is no legal requirement to report circumcisions. The "official" statistics relate only to hospital based circumcisions, and even there they are incomplete. Many parents these days are taking their sons home from the hospital uncircumcised but having them circumcised elsewhere (home, physician's office, special clinic, etc) a few weeks later. The figures also do not include all the boys who have to be circumcised as children or teens because of problems with their foreskin (mainly phimosis and balanitis); nor the growing number of teens and young adults who choose circumcision for aesthetic and long-term medical reasons.
When these factors are all taken into consideration it is clear that the circumcision rate in the USA is more-or-less holding steady.
Similar reasoning concerning the lack of comprehensive statistics on male circumcision apply to nearly all other countries. It is estimated that up to 25% of British males are circumcised, but "official" statistics only show around 10%.
Poor Denied Benefits of Circumcision
I notice that some anti-circers explain the continued high infant circ rates in the U.S., as opposed to lower rates in Australia, by claiming the health system in the U.S. pays for the procedure while the system in Australia does not. To be sure, much of this information is not accurate as you would expect when provided by anti-circers. In fact the health system in Australia does pay for the procedure when you can find a hospital and doctor willing to do it.
It has been the absence of willing hospitals and doctors that has been the problem (though this may be about to change as circumcision benefits become better known).
Meanwhile, most people in the U.S. are covered by private health insurance which in almost all cases does cover neonatal circumcision.
In fact a couple of years ago, someone on the old circlist did a survey of private insurance companies in the United States and could not find a single one that did not cover infant circumcision. However, it is true that some state sponsored Medicaid programs for health coverage for the poor no longer cover infant circumcision. This is true for about a dozen states that have been motivated primarily by a desire to reduce spending during times of budgetary constraints (though sometimes using false anti-circ propaganda for justification). A few of these states have been run by Democrats--as in California before Ah'nold--while a greater number have been run by Republicans--as in governor Jeb Bush's Florida. The end result is that the poor in these states are being denied the many health and hygienic benefits of circumcision (though some of the poor manage to have the procedure done anyway). And of course the anti-circers are enthusiastic in supporting this reprehensible discrimination against the least powerful people in society. Personally, I fear this discrimination is going to have serious long-term consequences as the AIDS pandemic works its way into western heterosexual societies (not to mention other potential problems). So the poor lose once again!
An interesting side observation to all of this comes from Canada, When the Ontario health care system decided to stop covering neonatal circumcision--called delisting--there was a study conducted on the impact for infant circ rates in the London area of Ontario. It found the infant circ rate actually increased slightly in the months following delisting. Of course granted the sample population was primarily middle class and able to pay.
Morley
