Log In | Register
From the page:
-- It used to be called the unkindest cut. But now the head of the one of the world's largest Aids charities believes we are on the brink of a revolution in attitudes to circumcision. --
Male circumcision 'lowers risk of HIV infection by 60%'
Seeded on Wed Aug 9, 2006 4:38 PM EDT
Article Source: Independent.co.uk- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (5)
There's an important point missing until the very end of the article. Statements like this
A study published last month calculated that if all men in sub-Saharan Africa were circumcised, it would prevent almost six million new cases of HIV infection and save three million lives over the next 20 years.
Entirely miss it.. 60% reduction isn't enough to prevent the virus' spread, just enough to slow it. So if people consider that they are safe because they are circumcised, it could even make spread of HIV more likely. This is where the figures above are terribly misleading - if the rate of use of condoms decreased far less than six million new cases might be prevented.
- 4 votes
#1 - Wed Aug 9, 2006 8:53 PM EDTYou make a good point, Djehuty, but I don't think that invalidates the use of circumcision as a preventive strategy, especially for men who won't (or don't have access) to condoms and/or other HIV reducing strategies.
From the article:
The rate of HIV infection in west Africa is less than 10 per cent, compared with more than 20 per cent in South Africa, which has mystified researchers.
Catherine Hankins, chief scientific adviser to UNAids, and a co-author of the study of the impact of circumcision on Aids in sub-Saharan Africa, published in the online journal PloS Medicine, said: "In west and central Africa there are high circumcision rates and lower HIV rates. Southern and eastern Africa have lower circumcision rates and higher HIV rates."
What's missing from the article is any figure of condom use in either of the two areas being compared. I imagine the difference in infection rate that is due to circumcision is in men who don't use condoms anyway. For those men, circumcision would certainly be advisable. But you're quite right that thinking you are protected could lead to more unprotected sex. I would hope that they've taken that into account.
- 1 vote
People who are circumcised can still be infected with HIV and any awareness campaign would have to be extremely careful not to suggest that it protects against HIV or is an alternative to using condoms."
Very good point, Djehuty.
In my opinion, circumcision may also increase incidence of sexual violence... my thought on the connection is that not only does circumcision somewhat numb the male glans (due to constant exposure to irritants, clothes), it has a connection with sensitivity in sexual intimacies. IMO, the decreased sensitivity in the circumcised male also makes coitus much less a matter of a journey, than a destination (from my perspective, of course). The penetration being the driving force, without the benefit of sensitivity to be aware of the "amount of force being used".
I am interested in other's perspectives on this.
- 1 vote
#2 - Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:27 PM EDTI have read elsewhere however that while circumcision does reduce the likelihood of transferring aids it also increases the likelihood of transferring other STD's.
#3 - Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:32 PM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
