The Seattle Times: Local News: Circumcision foes doubt practice can halt AIDS spread

A recent study has shown a correlation between male circumcision and a decrease in the incedence of HIV infection in men.

Naturally it is a cheap, easy and apparently effective preventitive so someone has to protest:

Just when the genital-integrity advocates thought they were winning the battle against routine male circumcision, along comes research touting it as a way to stop the spread of AIDS — and reports that the world’s best-known Bills (Gates and Clinton) are extolling its virtues.

Preliminary research indicating male circumcision may significantly reduce the spread of HIV became a focus at the Toronto conference.

Excuse me it seems like that is what happened. There was a report it showed this as a promising development Bill Gates endorsed it. I guess in the DOC world “open to the science” means foreskin uber alles.

I am not real fond of the preliminary desigination here. I think there have been at least 24 studies on this the majority indicating the same thing. Circumcised males are at less risk from HIV than uncircumcised males.

There, more than 20,000 doctors, public-health experts and others — including big-time funders like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and big-time crowd-pleasers like former President Clinton — brainstormed about ways to stop the AIDS virus, which has infected 39 million people worldwide.

Clinton, noting cultural and safety concerns, told those attending the conference: “Frankly, it would be a lot of trouble to get it done.”

Not as much as you might think. I was listening to a discussion on this on NPR and in areas in Africa where circumcision is being offered for free as part of a follow on study they are having to turn people away. The doctors or Moyles or who ever can’t keep up with the demand.

Gates said relying on circumcision to prevent AIDS has one big problem: It still “depends on a man,” he said. “We need to put the power to prevent HIV in the hands of women.”

A vaccine would be nice and there is investigation into prophylactic anti-virals, but abstinence is still an option.

For Geisheker, those problems are just a start. “Village or bush surgery in septic conditions, on millions of Africans against their will or with coerced or bogus consent, or upon children, where even clean water is a luxury — with the payoff 18 years from now? Really? Please!”

I don’t really think that statement requires much from me.

Some 150 anti-circumcision activists from more than 20 countries are expected to attend the Seattle conference.

Now activists face a new challenge on the medical front. Conferees have drafted a petition to the Gates Foundation and other global-health powerhouses, urging them to resist efforts to push circumcision as an “HIV/AIDS panacea” in developing countries.

I doubt anyone considers 60% a panacea, but what if it was 100% would circumcision be worthwhile then?

Such a scheme is “deeply flawed,” would sustain troubling, “even cruel” practices and would violate human rights, the petition said.

Guess not. “We would rather you died than be circumcised” (hey that rhymes. If you genital-integrity advocates use it I want a royalty).

“We’ve found over the years that whatever is the biggest scare at the moment, just be patient, and circumcision will be touted as its preventative,” said Dr. Leonard Glick, a conference speaker and author of “Marked in Your Flesh,” a history of circumcision.

Yeah… I’ve heard a lot of people pushing for circumcision to treat diabetes, obesity, heart disease and brian brain cancer. I’ve also heard that it prevents violent crime, terrorism and reduces homelessness. I guess it’s like a big Masonic lodge where we all become brothers and go forth to do evil no more.

Glick worries that large, well-funded organizations may now push the procedure. “Obviously, we’re up against some really formidable opposition.”

Even if the claimed protective effect of 60 percent is true, it said, people still need to practice safe sex.

Duh. Of course people will still have to practice safe sex. The fallacy the anti-circumcision advocates are pushing is that after circumcising a man he will just be told to go off and bang as many women as he wants, spreading his, eventually, disease laden semen far and wide.

Two large studies of circumcision and HIV rates are now under way in Uganda and Kenya, with results expected next year.

Information from Seattle Times news services was used in this report.

On the serious side I used to work in the Military Public Health field where I ran a number of STD clinics.

The knowledge that circumcision can reduce infection rates has been around since at least the early 90’s and I vaguely remember seeing something about it back around 87.

I don’t think this is the end all be all for HIV/AIDS, it is just too adaptable, but it’s a tool. It just pisses me off when some jerk whose entire life is probably based around the fact that someone made fun of him in the shower in school wants to deny the potential benefits to others.

(If you are anti-circumcision more power to you don’t get circumcised, don’t get your kids circumcised, but jeez let people who might benefit from a circumcision benefit)

This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 23rd, 2006 at 7:14 pm by Chad and is filed under Big Thoughts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.