Officials Weigh Circumcision to Fight H.I.V. Risk (CDC Possible Recomendation)

Source: NY Times

Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.

The topic is a delicate one that has already generated controversy, even though a formal draft of the proposed recommendations, due out from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by the end of the year, has yet to be released.

Experts are also considering whether the surgery should be offered to adult heterosexual men whose sexual practices put them at high risk of infection. But they acknowledge that a circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact: the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk here, men who have sex with men.

Recently, studies showed that in African countries hit hard by AIDS, men who were circumcised reduced their infection risk by half. But the clinical trials in Africa focused on heterosexual men who are at risk of getting H.I.V. from infected female partners.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/health/policy/24circumcision.html?_r=3

Why only try to save the boys?

(Why is America so in love with the mutilation of kids sexual organs?)

Put me in the ban all circumcision camp.

http://www.aegis.com/conferences/IASHIVPT/2005/TuOa0401.html

Not surprised that that line of inquiry hasn't been persued any further. Western scientists don't seem to like results that don't confirm their own cultural biases.

Frankly, if we're going to treat genital cutting as the way to reduce HIV, I don't see why it shouldn't cut both ways.

First, parents have to approve of any surgical procedure on their offspring. Circumcision might be offered and more facts used to back up its use rather than a simple cultural preference, but it's still a parental choice, not an absolute.

Second, this will cover infants, only. No one will force the procedure on anyone else, certainly not adults.

Heterosexually transmitted HIV is on the rise in this country and gay men no longer represent the fastest growing group of new HIV cases here. The CDC is recognizing this and the new guidelines reflect it.

If you wouldn't force this procedure on anyone else, how can you justify forcing it on an infant?

You force everything on infants because they lack the capacity to decide much of anything.

It's why we call them infants.

Hell, the entire birthing procedure is far more traumatic than the circumcision. I believe parents have the right to choose whether to circumcise their child, but your statement is little more than hyperbole.

That makes it SOOOOO much better. I don't really need a sarcasm smiley, do I?

it doesn't hurt infants, that's why they don't give them pain medication or anesthetic. It's a pleasant and happy experience just like taking a poo and eating.

(Likewise I hope this doesn't require a sarcasm tag.)

First, if parents are making the decision, who is forcing this on anyone?

Second, if it makes medical sense to promote it in infants, why wouldn't it be recommended for others?

Third, again, a recommendation and advocacy is not the same as force.

It prevents masturbation.

Um, no, it keeps everything nice and clean.

Um, every boy wants to look like daddy.

It'll keep you from getting the AIDS.

etc.

Rate of circumcision in the U.S. is approximately 79%. In South Korea, it's about the same. And in Israel it's close to 100%.

Compare that with

Australia -- Less than 60%

Canada -- Less than 40%

Europe -- Less than 20% (exceptions: Turkey, Slovenia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia.)

New Zealand -- Less than 20%

Russia -- Less than 20%

Taiwan -- Less than 20%

India -- Less than 20%

Japan -- Less than 1%

China -- Less than 1%

Routine circumcision is not civilized.

We did not circumcise our now three-and-a-half-year-old, as I could find no logical reason to do so. However, the studies from Africa are mildly compelling. More studies need to be done in other parts of the world, including the US, IMO, however, before such a recommendation should be made.

They aren't that compelling when you dig deeper! The areas represented in the studies were AIDS hotspots. HIV spread was mainly through heterosexual contact but ... in those areas of Africa there are some key things left out. Women practice the art of vaginal drying by placing certain leaves in their vaginas to dry them out (I kid you not). This increases the risk of HIV transmission. Also, despite attempts at educating, condoms are not accepted there as a way to prevent the spread of hiv and other STDs.

An interesting fact left out is that there were also similar studies conducted on the circumcised baby girls...and there was MUCH more compelling evidence that circumcision of the girls prevented HIV. GAAAH. Want to tackle that one?

None of my boys are circed and I am happy with that decision. I think the choice is cultural and with insurance companies now cutting back on paying for circumcision this appears to just be an attempt to have this procedure get coverage again. That's just my opinion, of course.

I'm all for teaching safe sex instead of circumcising. Remember...circumcision doesn't mean NO hiv, and in other civilized countries where circumcision is not routinely practiced (ie Europe)there is no increased rate of HIV or penile cancer.

This all looks rather dubious to me. I don't see how you can so directly extrapolate from sub-saharan Africa to the United states. Looking at the 1st world alone, it is well known that the US has the highest circ rate with the exception of Israel, and also the highest rate of HIV and other STD's.

At the very least, if the CDC is going to reccomend this, they need to put a system in place similar to the VAERS system to track the real rate of complications and adverse events so that we can find out if the benefits really do outweigh the risks. Somehow I don't think that's going to happen.

It looks to me like someone with an agenda other than that of HIV control may have gotten into an influential position at CDC.