> Interestingly, they reference a statement from 1996 which is no longer the current position.
They reference both current and historical statements, I assume on purpose to show how the position has evolved. For the case of Australia, the newest statement is on top, and the statements are clearly dated, so there is no room to confuse a newer one with an older one.
It takes very motivated reasoning to conclude they are biased just because they present a historical timeline.
I did not see the latest statement on their site! Did I miss it? I have no qualms at all with presenting the historical timeline, as long as the latest factual and science-based statement is included and given the most weight.
It appears the link to the most recent statement is broken (404) which could be why I missed it.
However, the way the timeline is presented also raises eyebrows;
> In September 2002, under the lead of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP), Paediatrics and Child Health Division, six major medical societies of Australasia developed a unified position statement on male circumcision. All six medical societies (...) have now corroborated the Canadian Paediatric Society, declaring that circumcision of newborn males should not be routinely performed. The new statement firmly declares: "There are no medical indications for routine male circumcision." This statement was slightly revised in September 2004. This statement was retired in 2010.
“All six have now corroborated...” is a peculiar way to describe historical statements which are no longer considered medically accurate.
That’s a particularly odd way to conclude that new studies have provided compelling evidence of important health benefits of circumcision in certain contexts.
The fact that many commenters here seem to be entirely unaware that there do exist some demonstrable medical benefits in terms of resistance to and transmission of STDs and STIs reflects this.
They reference both current and historical statements, I assume on purpose to show how the position has evolved. For the case of Australia, the newest statement is on top, and the statements are clearly dated, so there is no room to confuse a newer one with an older one.
It takes very motivated reasoning to conclude they are biased just because they present a historical timeline.