Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Published Letters: 8 Editor's Choice: 2
I have read the research suggesting that circumcision lowers HIV contraction risk in males in heterosexual sex. The reason is mainly because the circumcised penis becomes essentially "callused" in a way that reduces the chance that irritation from sex will lead to fluid interchange and thus spread of the infection.
As usual, doctors have whipped out their scalpel before stepping back and thinking about the problem. Though circumcision reduces the chance that one sexual encounter will result in HIV contraction, the chance that HIV contraction happens is still there, and significant. That means every time a circumcised man has sex, he plays Russian roulette, but instead of the gun having two bullets (like uncircumcised men), the gun has one. Still, if this man has sex with women, frequently and beyond the length of time of a typical clinical trial (say, he has sex once a month for 5 years), there's still a very significant chance he'll contract the disease.
The 99% effective way to prevent HIV transfer is condom use. Yet, despite the fact that this exists, doctors would rather spend money and time cutting off people's foreskins (and thus making them think they are "safe" to have sex, an untold psychological effect of these procedures!) and letting them off. We would be much better off equipping these men with education and condoms.
But given my experience with it, I don't expect the medical industry to see this obvious conclusion.
Laurel,
You write:
"I agree that 100% condom use is more logical and effective than circumscision, but I have met and spoken to health workers from Uganda, and it is simply impossible in today's Africa for an average male to have access to a regular, cheap supply of good quality condoms."
So, you're telling me it's impossible for male's to have access to pieces of plastic and to get them educated, but it's possible and practical to strap down as many men as possible into some stirrups and surgically remove their foreskin? Give me a break.
"We are not talking about the US or even another 3rd world country where this might be the case. For many individuals, a single surgical procedure done by a foreign medical team or something might be a very reasonable solution to HIV prevention."
That'd be great; unfortunately, it's not a solution. It's only a "mitigating" measure, which may reduce the overall rate of spread, but not prevent it. As I explained above, it's not as if circumcised men have a LOW chance of contracting HIV from a partner during unprotected sex; in fact, they have a very HIGH chance, it's just slightly lower than uncircumcised men!
Don't tell me getting people to use condoms is "just impossible," when their widespread use would reduce HIV to the point that it would become a rare disease. Doing a genital mutilation surgery one by one to every man you can find to get a HIV spread rate reduced by a few percentage points and give people a false sense of security about their ability to contract HIV, now that's possible? That's the course of action we should be on?
Let me ask you something: how many African men who get the circumcision surgery are gonna go home and say, "I think I should still use a condom when I have sex." Don't you think they're more likely to say, "I can have sex without worrying about HIV -- woohoo! What's a condom again?"
It's really pathetic. And this doctor gets hailed as if he's some sort of genius.
Anyone can cut off an arm to reduce hand pain. But it's probably smarter to teach people how to use an icepack.
Doctors are supposed to help people.
It is widely reported that Falwell apologized for what he said, but in reality he did no such thing. Instead, he opted for a technicality: the gays, lesbians and feminists weren't personally responsible, but God lifted his protective shield over America and allowed the attacks of 9/11 because of their, and others', immorality.
For example, here is the widely-quoted CNN article whose headline is "Falwell apologizes to gays, feminists, lesbians". I believe this article should have never run with this headline.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/
Read the article, and you'll find that in the same phone interview in which he "apologizes", Falwell says:
"I do believe, as a theologian, based upon many Scriptures and particularly Proverbs 14:23, which says 'living by God's principles promotes a nation to greatness, violating those principles brings a nation to shame' [... The ACLU and other organizations] which have attempted to secularize America, have removed our nation from its relationship with Christ on which it was founded. [...] I therefore believe that that created an environment which possibly has caused God to lift the veil of protection which has allowed no one to attack America on our soil since 1812."
In other words, the gays, lesbians, feminists, the ACLU, and others have angered God, and therefore, He decided not to protect us on 9/11, as a punishment.
Later on, he says, "I would never blame any human being except the terrorists, and if I left that impression with gays or lesbians or anyone else, I apologize."
He doesn't blame any human being except the terrorists for personally -- in some undeniable, cause-and-effect way -- causing the towers to physically crumble. But he does believe that their immoral actions caused God to look unfavorably upon America as a nation, and that 9/11 was allowed to happen because God wanted to punish our nation for the sins of our pagan citizens.
Conclusion? If we were all "moral, Christian" people like he is, then none of this would have ever happened. Which is exactly what he said in his original statement.
Some apology.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
