Circumcision Reduces HIV Risk in Heterosexual Men

**Hmmmmm! :hmmm:
**

**
**

Circumcision Reduces HIV Risk in Heterosexual Men

A new U.S. study has found that being circumcised significantly reduced the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual African American men known to have been exposed to the virus. The findings complement those of recently reported clinical trials in Africa, where interventional use of adult male circumcision similarly reduced the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men. The findings of the new study, along with similar results from other studies, suggest that circumcision may protect other heterosexual males in the U.S. The promising new findings are reported in the January 1 issue of The Journal of Infectious Diseases, now available online.

more…

Well, I’m sure state-sanctioned executions of everyone found to have AIDS would do so too, doesn’t mean that THAT is a morally OK means of reducing it!

I’m not a fan of circumcision, for me it’s like cutting off your ears so that you don’t have to wash behind them or something.

I support it. Not just for the men but the women. It cuts down the numbers of PID and other diseases in women by a large amount which in some countries can lead to sterility and can even cause death. There is a reason that circumcision has a risen in many cultures besides Judaism. Its not just about washing behind your ears, it harbors bacteria and viruses even if you are clean.

Having elective surgery to slightly reduce the risk of an already 100% preventable disease is silly. Countries like Sweden prove this. Hardly anyone is circumcised there, and they have much lower HIV rates than the US(which is the only Western country where routine circumcision is the norm).

Isn’t advocating circumcision to cut down on HIV transmission like advocating condoms for cutting down HIV transmission…it’s condoning sex outside of marriage…isn’t it…or what ever arguement I always read about why condoms somehow makes one complicit with promiscuity…doesn’t advocating circumcision for the same reason have the same effect?

HIV transmission does not occur if neither partner is negative and monogomous…circumcised or not.

This is kinda of interesting, I was thinking: some claim that teaching for example condome use & protection increases promisquity & makes sex ok. Isn’t promoting circumsition that decreses the chance of getting HIV the same & will cause “perversion & more unfaithful (since if you’re in a 1 on 1 faithful relationship, the chance of getting HIV some way else is low) sex”.

Furthermore, the debate over whether circumsicion decreases the chances of getting HIV has been disputed for some time now, since some studies support it, while others disprove.

Interesting. I’m still not a fan of circumcision though. However, I am a fan of abstinence before marriage and testing of your partner for STDs before marriage.

No one is really buying this are they? I can’t believe they actually put good money into this study in the first place. A blood transfusion doesn’t care if you are circumcised. A dirty needle doesn’t care if you are circumcised. Your chances of getting HIV through sex are going to be the same circumcised or not.

:confused:
I don’t understand your reasoning. Circumcision is irrelevant to blood transfusion or IV drug abuse. However, circumcision is relevant to sexual activity.

The editors of the Journal of Infectious Disease had this to say about the study:

[quote=Journal of Infectious Disease]In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), while “recognizing potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision,” concluded that the “data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision” [22]. The statement was similar to prior AAP recommendations. Because of this decision, Medicaid does not cover circumcision costs, which is particularly disadvantageous for poorer African American and Hispanic boys who, as adults, may face high risk of HIV exposure. It is also noteworthy that circumcision rates have been declining in the United States, possibly because of a lack of Medicaid coverage [20]. It is to be hoped that the findings reported by Warner et al. [19], in conjunction with the weight of evidence from international studies, will persuade the AAP to recognize the public health importance of this surgery for the prevention of HIV infection in minority US populations.
[/quote]

journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/595568?cookieSet=1

That is exactly my point. HIV is transferred one person to another through fluid transfer (i.e. a blood transfusion or sex) or using a dirty needle. Being circumcised will not protect against the virus no matter how you are getting it.

A minor article in a minor journal justifying millions of dollars spent on a “Study” (been there, done that) If you can show me where the AMA or the CDC endorses the study…

Studies seem to say otherwise. Now, the reason for the lower risk is unknown. Some speculate that that the foreskin retains fluid (and thus virus) which increases risk. Others suggest that the foreskin itself is more susceptible to invasion by the virus. Another theory is that removal of the foreskin toughens the glans, making it more resistant to the virus.

A minor article in a minor journal justifying millions of dollars spent on a “Study” (been there, done that) If you can show me where the AMA or the CDC endorses the study…

Wow.

You’re the first person I’ve encountered which considers the Journal of Infectious Diseases to be a minor journal. Its the journal of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. It really is a major source of medical information.

As to the CDC or AMA reacting to the study, I think it is far to early for that. Bureaucracies move slowly. But I would contend that it is the American Academy of Pediatrics which is more important in this case. Circumcision as a newborn seems to be the optimal time, so the AAP’s reaction is probably most relevant.

Studies seem to say otherwise. Now, the reason for the lower risk is unknown. Some speculate that that the foreskin retains fluid (and thus virus) which increases risk. Others suggest that the foreskin itself is more susceptible to invasion by the virus. Another theory is that removal of the foreskin toughens the glans, making it more resistant to the virus.

A study. One with lots of “ifs” and not enough information to come to a definite conclusion. What were the study parameters? What were the controls? How many subjects for what period of time? There are also too many questions left unanswered and many more asked. This release will only give people a false sense of safety.

As to the CDC or AMA reacting to the study, I think it is far to early for that. Bureaucracies move slowly. But I would contend that it is the American Academy of Pediatrics which is more important in this case. Circumcision as a newborn seems to be the optimal time, so the AAP’s reaction is probably most relevant.

The whole point of this statement was to encourage the government to mandate medicaid pay for circumcision and saying it will reduce HIV/AIDS later in life is being used to get their attention. If that is the case, OK, that’s fine but their results really don’t make sense as they have stated it.

The whole point of this statement was to encourage the government to mandate medicaid pay for circumcision and saying it will reduce HIV/AIDS later in life is being used to get their attention. If that is the case, OK, that’s fine but their results really don’t make sense as they have stated it.

you mean Medicaid won’t pay for a circumcision if a woman wants it for her newborn son? I’m surprised as circumcision was practically the default option here where I live back in the 60’s when Medicaid started. If you did not want to have your child circumcised by a physician (because you wanted a moyel to do it), you needed to make that clear to the hospital.

Yep, my parents weren’t on Medicaid but I was born in 1959 and was circumcised. As you wrote, it was the default position.

However, the American Academy of Pediatrics deems circumcision to be medically unnecessary. And Medicaid is always looking for ways to save money - trimming benefits is one way.

Yep the anti circ croud is really pushing for insurance companies to stop funding this unnecessary procedure:thumbsup: Circumcising to prevent HIV makes as much sense as me making my daughter go through a mastectomy because breast cancer runs in my family…doesnt make much sense once you think about it. With that said, I have no problem with grown men doing this to their own body…I just have a problem with holding babies down while someone cuts off a very sensitive part of their sexual organ. Mean…

One of my friends is a nurse working with elderly patients. One of her jobs is to clean the private area of the older men who aren’t cirumcized. They forget to do this chore themselves. Based on what she’s seen :eek: she highly recommends circumcision. These areas can get very unhygenic. :twocents:

Hehe well at that age a caretaker will already have to bathe him and change his diaper so cleaning his foreskin will definetly be the easiest of the above tasks thats for sure. Besides isnt it a little, um wrong, to advocate cutting a healthy part off a baby because some day he MIGHT need someone else to clean it for him? Assuming the baby lives to an old age and then if he does live to an old age assuming he cannot care for himself anymore. I am sure the odds are pretty low, especially to recommend ALL baby boys be circumcised. right? And your post made it seem like its ok to circumcise boys for the convenience of others, that is not right.

I also wanted to add that this issue really has nothing to do with circumcision because if any person, male or female forgets to clean themselves it will be very unhygenic down there. I am sure your friend has cared for elderly ladies too, and I am sure they can have the same unhygenic issues as men do. I am also sure that the things your friend saw that alarmed her was something called “smegma”. In males, smegma helps keep the glans moist and facilitates sexual intercourse by acting as a lubricant.

This is not to be confused with being unhygenic, smegma is a normal part of an intact foreskin.

Just thought I would educate a little because there seems to be alot of confusion about this subject

Wait you are for FEMALE circumcision?

No, I originally read it that way too. But I think what the OP is referring to is the fact that if a woman has sex with a circ’ed male, it is safer for her from this perspective.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.