A public service announcement from MGMbill.org.

On December 13, 2006, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) declared that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of acquiring HIV.

Now, some physicians and news media outlets are promoting circumcision as a possible "vaccine" for AIDS.

This question and answer page is an attempt to dispel the myths and assumptions surrounding these reports by presenting the facts.

How did male circumcision and AIDS first become linked?

The association between circumcision and AIDS began in 1986, when the late California urologist and circumcision promoter Aaron J. Fink proposed that the keratinization damage caused by male circumcision would prevent HIV infection. A number of studies on the subject have been conducted in Africa since that time.

Does male circumcision actually help prevent HIV/AIDS?

Although results from studies linking male circumcision and AIDS are conflicting, the two most recently completed studies in Kenya and Uganda show that male circumcision has a 48% - 53% protective effect against HIV over a 14 month period.

The previously published Auvert Study concluded that circumcision reduced HIV transmission in South African men by 63% over a period of 21 months, but that study was widely criticized for having a number of easily spotted flaws in methodology, and for its overly optimistic conclusions.

The multi-country Mishra study concluded that circumcision may actually increase transmission of the AIDS virus, however, which is what many earlier studies found.

What about female circumcision and AIDS?

The relationship between female circumcision and AIDS has also been studied, with similar conflicting results. The Stallings Study found that female circumcision reduces transmission of the AIDS virus, while other studies have shown that it increases transmission.

Has America's high rate of male circumcision helped prevent AIDS in the USA?

The United States has one of the highest rates of male circumcision and also one of the highest rates of HIV infection in the developed world, suggesting that circumcision is having exactly the opposite effect. Conversely, Finland and Japan have one of the lowest rates of circumcision and also one of the lowest rates of HIV/AIDS.

Should men be allowed to undergo circumcision?

If a fully informed consenting adult feels that circumcision is right for him, then that's a personal choice he should be allowed to make. In practice, though, most circumcisions are forced onto others against their will, and even voluntary adult circumcision is likely to do more harm than good.

What about children? Should doctors be allowed to circumcise infants and boys if the WHO studies conclusively show that male circumcision helps prevent AIDS?

If doctors are granted permission to cut off part of a child's functional genital anatomy because it might help prevent a disease later in life, there is no limit to the number of body parts that they can amputate. They could argue that child mastectomy would wipe out breast cancer, for example, and that partial castration would reduce the incidence of testicular cancer. Circumcision of infants and boys for any reason other than a clear, compelling, and immediate medical need is sexual assault.

Will doctors ever begin promoting female circumcision as a way to help prevent AIDS?

It's a very real possibility. If physicians are successful in convincing governments to allow boys and infants to be forcefully circumcised as part of the war on AIDS, it may only be a matter of time before other doctors use the Stallings Study to justify circumcising girls for the same reason.

Technorati Tags: