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."
2 Comments:
Dr. Kevin de Cock??? What is this shit?
Yeah, I just can't help but think wow, you know what's easier, less painful, and more effective than circumcision? Uh...condoms. Just sayin.
Hey John-
Just read your blog about circumcision (potentially) reducing HIV risk in men and your comparison of circumcision to genital mutilation, and I must say I disagree on that point. Circumcision involves the removal of some skin, while a clitorectomy would be the total removal of the clitoris (soft tissue, nerve fibers and blood vessels). The latter procedure would be genital mutilation, while no one, particularly and importantly, the medical and public health community or human rights groups, considers circumcision to be genital mutilation. Circumcision (which in the vast majority of people is done during infancy), does not result in any long lasting consequence, such as loss of sensation or function, and is not done with any malice or attempt to affect sexual interactions and enjoyment. Futhermore, if done in infancy, there is no memory and no emotional and physical trauma associated with the procedure. Genital mutilation (clitorectomies), on the otherhand, are done with malice and forethought, in order to subjugate females and make sex non-pleasureable (so as to "reduce promiscuity"). There is no use of anesthetic, as there often is with circumsision, and it results in horrible (intentional) scarring. I feel that it is the cruelty involved and the intent inherent in FGM (female genital mutiltation) which makes it despicable. Women are scarred physically and emotionally for the rest of their lives. The same cannot be said about circumcision. As far as the link between HIV infection reats and circumcision, the recent data is very interesting. If something as simple as a circumcision can help prevent the contraction and spread of this deadly disease, I am for it, especially in countries with little access to healthcare and medication.
Post a Comment
<< Home