Circumcision protects against AIDS-HIV infection?

Question

Now that health authorities have confirmed after several research studies that circumcision indeed protects against AIDS-HIV infection and lowers the riks of contraction up to 70%, what do you think will be the future of those groups and lobbies that irrationally and fanatically oppose the procedure without any realistic or logical reason?

(See http://www.baby-health.net/articles/381.html and

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/14/health/main2263235.shtml )

Please READ the question. I'm not asking if it protects or not. I already know IT DOES. I'm asking what you think will happen with those groups I mention.

Answer 1

Let's have a look at the answers to see how fanatical the anti-circumcision responses are...

One asserts that "everyone is entitled to his opinion." This is of course true, even when the subject has been scientifically proven. One is perfectly entitled to the opinion that gravity does not exist.

Another makes an absurd comparison to female circumcision.

One makes the assertion that they are concerned with the ability to consent to the surgery. While I don't agree with the argument, I can certainly respect the sincerity.

One fails to address the question, merely stating that "circumcision is male genital mutilation."

One asserts that "in the western world, being circumcised or not will not changed your likelihood of contracting HIV." This person apparently believes that the virus carries a passport, and behaves differently abroad! He goes on to assert "there are several studies that show female circumcision also greatly reduces the likelihood of contracting AIDS." In point of fact, there was only one (most found the reverse), and the authors suggested that it was due to confounding.

Another states that "as far as I can tell, nobody asked the men how often they had sex and how many partners they had." This is of course contradicted by the available information in the 'questions and answers' document. They continue "so my guess is that circumcision cut way down on all types of sexual activity (because it cut down on pleasure)." Apparently this person has been fooled by the anti-circumcision propaganda, and is not aware that scientific studies have not found this to be true.

Finally, another asserts that "there are conflicting studies with this one as well (see links)." This person is apparently ignorant of the importance of study quality in epidemiology. Randomised controlled trials are the gold standard. Citing less reliable studies as evidence of 'conflict' merely exposes ignorance.

Answer 2

"Protects" and "prevents" are very misleading words. Lowers HIV rates, we can't probably dispute that. Regardless, the future for groups opposing the procedure will endure far better than you might think.

Why? One reason is because the results of these studies vary widely by article, some articles citing a 70% reduction others at 48%. But look for yourself at the pure numbers. In one study in Kenya, 47/1392 of uncircumcised men became infected with HIV while 22/1392 of circumcised men became infected with HIV. While yes, it's about a 50% decrease, something else must be noted. Only 3.38% of the uncircumcised and 1.58% of the circumcised population in the study became infected. The complication rates for circumcision stand at 1-5% in the US, and are obviously much higher in a country like Africa.

The sheer funding cost to support "proper" circumcisions in African are quite large. You would need to fund the facilities, the practitioners, the training, etc. To use circumcision as a prevention aid would require tremendous money. Furthermore circumcision alone is nowhere nearly enough, you would also need to enforce condom use and distribution and sex education. Many men, after being circumcised, would probably feel "protected" from HIV or that circumcision "prevents" HIV and become careless. This renders condom use and safe sex education nearly useless. This is just how human behavior works.

Rather, what should be done is more emphasis on condom use and distribution and especially on safe sex education. This has worked wonders in Cambodia and Thailand, countries with a heavy sex trade and also largely with uncircumcised males. They have some of the lowest rates in the world, far lower than the US where most of the men are still circumcised. Why? Simple, condom use and safe sex education. Cambodia and Thailand pour all that money into programs that're far more effective than circumcision in preventing or reducing HIV rates.

Lastly, there are conflicting studies with this one as well (see links). Why would circumcision be favored if simple proper hygiene evens the playing field? One definitely has a cost, the other is essentially free. Groups that oppose circumcision will never disappear as long as there are better (and more cost-effective) proven ways of dealing with HIV. They are not irrational (though some might be fanatical), but the real irrational people are the ones who hail circumcision as the answer to the HIV problem when in fact, it's not as great as it could be.

Answer 3

I will play Devil's Advocate to your question:

There are definite health benefits to circumcision. But what if someone cited health benefits and called for circumcisions to all female outer labia? Would you be gung-ho for that as well? Would you say that anyone who opposes it is behaving "irrationally and fanatically"? That procedure falls under the category of female genitalia mutilations. Is is OK just because it is a male? Or because there is a long tradition of doing it to males and not females?

Wearing a condom is still much better protection from AIDS than getting a circumcision. Let the people who want it get circumcised, and the people who disagree won't get circumcised.

Answer 4

Well there are plenty of good reasons groups can oppose circumcision.

These studies were performed in tribes in places where AIDS is rampant. In the western world, being circumcised or not will not changed your likelihood of contracting HIV. These studies give the false impression to people that circumcision is a way of preventing AIDS.

And when it comes to AIDS prevention, we shouldn't be trying to change people's bodies, we should be trying to change their mindsets. Educate people about safe sex and protection, and then you'll see less HIV.

There are several studies that show female circumcision also greatly reduces the likelihood of contracting AIDS. Why not just do that as well?

Answer 5

I know of no "groups and lobbies that irrationally and fanatically oppose the procedure without any realistic or logical reason"
You personally may not agree with their arguments but (excluding the kooks), these people are fundamentally opposed to carrying out irreversible cosmetic surgery without the individual's consent. They are also generally agreed that adults are free to do whatever they want with their bodies, for whatever reasons.
I would expect that their position on routine infant circumcision will not change in any way.

Answer 6

I see no reason to cease campaigning against routine genital mutilation except POSSIBLY in sub-Saharan Africa, where circumstances are vastly different than elsewhere in the world.

As far as I can tell, nobody asked the men how often they had sex and how many partners they had, so my guess is that circumcision cut way down on all types of sexual activity (because it cut down on pleasure). Without that information, we don't know if, even in AIDS-ravaged parts of Africa, circumcision or reduced sexual frequency is the real difference.

In Africa, where these studies were done, condoms are expensive, hard to find, and culturally unacceptable. The study has little relevance to other areas of the world where they are cheap, abundant, and acceptable to most men. HIV is actually more common in the US, where most sexually-active men have been cut, than in Europe, with a sexually intact male population, probably because needle-sharing is more common in the US, so why not try to prevent needle-sharing instead of sexually mutilating men who are at low risk of sexualyy-transmitted AIDS?

Answer 7

Circumcision can save over two million in the next 15 years. This is very serious and should not be taken as a joke.

All these studies have been carried out by prestigious and respectable research institutions and universities, and are back in many cases by official organisations such as the US National Institutions of Health or the World Health Organisation.

Why uncircumcised men are more prone to STD’s?

Scientist have discovered that the skin covering the inner side of the foreskin is by its nature (has a very low amount of a protein called ‘keratin’ which stops viruses entering into the body, plus some other factors) acts as an ‘open door’ to STD’s. Circumcision, by removing the foreskin, ‘closes’ this ‘door’.

Circumcision rates are increasing nowadays, both in the United States and overseas. Many African and South American countries with little circumcision tradition are starting to promote the procedure to help to reduce the AIDS-HIV infection rates.

The sites below have very interesting information related to this topic. Please have a look.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/02_08_06.html

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=1928973§ionid=5054

Answer 8

Everyone is entitled to his opinion on something that is not necessarily a cut-and-dry subject. Many men get along fine without being circumcised, provided they care for the area properly. And if one does not put himself at unnecessary risk of exposing oneself to the disease, then it doesn't matter in the first place if responsible about partners and protection from AIDS.

Answer 9

yeah i read this article about a study done in africa the other day, and its jus rly hard to say. they show no study results. anyone who runs around and pokes his penis at anythin that move without wrappin it up has a chance to get anythin. safe sex is jus that, safe. do it right and youll be fine.

Answer 10

Circumcision is male genital mutilation