Read other letters about this article

• Wednesday, March 7, 2007 01:43 PM

  Immoral doctors operating for their own interest

  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.

  —pixelmonkey Read pixelmonkey's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel