To cut or not to cut
As an opponent of circumcision, I've been experiencing some cognitive dissonance reading the series of stories about how the procedure appears to drastically reduce men's susceptibility to HIV. Without necessarily drawing an equivalence with clitoridectomies, one ought to consider circumcision genital mutilation - if for no other reason than, well, that's what it is. And, for me anyway, its lunatic religious provenance makes it that much more offensive. (Q: What does Jesus do with all that foreskin anyway? Best guess so far among my friends is that he made a sweet hang glider, though we have no hard evidence as such.)
Saving lives in a disease-ravaged population would seem to allow for some ethical shortcuts (ahem) - but even so, one is led to further complicated questions: how far is too far in the realm of preventive health care? how at-risk does a child need to be for us to condone cutting up his penis? Et cetera. Anyway, I happened to find this particular conundrum compelling and would be interested to hear what others think.
Fortunately, it appears the WHO has the right man on the job. Read for yourself:
LONDON (AP) - Scientists say conclusive data shows there is no question circumcision reduces men's chances of catching HIV by up to 60 percent - a finding experts are hailing as a major breakthrough in the fight against AIDS. Now, the question is how to put that fact to work to combat AIDS across Africa.
The findings first were announced in December, when initial results from two major trials - in Kenya and Uganda - showed promising links between circumcision and HIV transmission. However, those trials were deemed so definitive that the tests were halted early.
The full data from the trials, carried out by the United States' National Institutes of Health, were published Friday in The Lancet.
"This is an extraordinary development," said Dr. Kevin de Cock, director of the World Health Organization's AIDS department. "Circumcision is the most potent intervention in HIV prevention that has been described."
Saving lives in a disease-ravaged population would seem to allow for some ethical shortcuts (ahem) - but even so, one is led to further complicated questions: how far is too far in the realm of preventive health care? how at-risk does a child need to be for us to condone cutting up his penis? Et cetera. Anyway, I happened to find this particular conundrum compelling and would be interested to hear what others think.
Fortunately, it appears the WHO has the right man on the job. Read for yourself:
LONDON (AP) - Scientists say conclusive data shows there is no question circumcision reduces men's chances of catching HIV by up to 60 percent - a finding experts are hailing as a major breakthrough in the fight against AIDS. Now, the question is how to put that fact to work to combat AIDS across Africa.
The findings first were announced in December, when initial results from two major trials - in Kenya and Uganda - showed promising links between circumcision and HIV transmission. However, those trials were deemed so definitive that the tests were halted early.
The full data from the trials, carried out by the United States' National Institutes of Health, were published Friday in The Lancet.
"This is an extraordinary development," said Dr. Kevin de Cock, director of the World Health Organization's AIDS department. "Circumcision is the most potent intervention in HIV prevention that has been described."
