Circ News Update
It’s Chanukah! What better time for an anti-circ rant?
According to Reuters, circumcision does not appear to help prevent AIDS in American men.
Black and Latino men were just as likely to become infected with the AIDS virus whether they were circumcised or not, Greg Millett of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.
The Australian Medical Association has backed a proposed law banning “non-essential� circumcision.
This is ominous for the domestic pro-circ camp who are hoping that the AAP will reinstate a preference for routine circumcision in the U.S. I don’t believe they will do so, and predict they may even switch to a slightly negative bias.
The proposed ban does not cover religious circumcisions. But really, ritual circumcisions should not be provided by any hospital once it is accepted that this is not medically essential. It isn’t their place to provide surgical procedures that are harmful to a child. And circumcision harms. That’s why the Aussie docs are backing a ban.
The film “Cut� is now available on DVD. It’s a great movie, and apparently, a quote from my review on Jewschool is on the back of the package.
One of the problems with addressing circumcision is that we Jews can’t separate it from Judaism, and concurrently attempt to address a solution even as we grapple with what circumcision really is. I think we need to first approach these issues separately before attempting to negotiate the contradiction.
7 comments
Editor -
I’ve heard of this movie and do intend to watch it at some point perhaps very soon. I also saw Eli’s discussion on youtube and over all I think he addressed questions well, particularly the HIV issue. I think that Dr. Sommerville outlined a very good ethical argument against circumcision; if you haven’t read it check it out here she even touched on the religious aspects. Unfortunately, I think the AAP has been letting boys down for years. They declared infant circumcision of no medical value but for some reason didn’t press on doctors to stop it. They also don’t seem to touch on the ethical aspects of the procedure at all perhaps in part because it might seem anti-semitic. Which is a shame because I think they can address it in the same way that Dr. Sommerville addresses it but instead choose to ignore the issue entirely.
I am hoping that the Australians go through with this idea, its nice to know that the Australian Med Association is supporting the initiative, it seems like a reasonable compromise. If your interested the Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations releases the following July 2007 statement where they were sure to point out that:
“Male circumcision has no role in the Australian HIV epidemic�
“African data on circumcision is context-specific and cannot be extrapolated to the Australian epidemic in any way.�
Oh and this one is my favorite: “The USA has a growing heterosexual epidemic and very high rates of circumcision�
Like you I hope the AAP will digest this new information rationally and ethically
y but sometimes it seems like US medical agencies look for any reason to keep th
e practice alive. Nice post BTW.
I’ve never seen such a blatant manipulation of the facts. You pulled out a quote supporting your view but failed to mention that
“The data has been so clear that the World Health Organization now recommends circumcision as one of the ways to prevent HIV infection. But circumcision does not protect men 100 percent — the studies in Africa have suggested it is 50 to 60 percent protective.”
or that the point of this article was regarding black and latino men.
“HIV is much more common among black and Latino men than whites and this may offset any protection offered by circumcision, Millett said. Black and Latino men are more likely to have sex with other black and Latino men, and thus may be exposed to HIV more often than white men.”
Additionally - the CDC’s information page on circumcision remains unchanged. Located here:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resourc.....cision.htm
Finally - I have personally spoken with a Urological surgeon on the subject of circumcision and he let me know that it unquestionably reduces the change of disease, infection and any number of different urological issues. Circumcision, while it does nothing to directly combat any of these things, it reduces the amount of dirt in the area and THAT in and of itself makes circumcision helpful in keeping yourself healthy.
Ben,
I don’t see what I manipulated. And this study was disputing the study you are referencing.
“I have personally spoken with a Urological surgeon on the subject of circumcision and he let me know that it unquestionably reduces the change of disease, infection and any number of different urological issues.”
Ask your urologist if removing a person’s sex organs in their entirety would help prevent communicable sexual diseases. He will unquestionably tell you it does.
So what?
“So what”? One is a procedure that has an arguably therapeutic benefit and comes at a claimed cost that is, also, arguable. So there is controversy. The other one is not a “procedure” recognized by medicine and in fact would certainly cost more loss of function and quality of life than any conceivable benefit. It’s not even “arguable,” DK.
DK, are those quotes from Ben in the report you’re writing about? If they are, you manipulated the meaning of the study — about 175 degrees.
Ron, again — that is the study the new test is disputing. That’s the whole point.
Oh, ok, I follow now.
To see IF circumcision actually reduces ANY disease, one only has to use simple logic–are the rates of these claimed reductions lower in all circumcising countries than in intact countries?
Simply check the rates out and one finds that the claim has no valididty–many intact county rates are much lower than circumcising country rates–INCLUDING HIV.
Any one who accepts the OPINION of some organization over simple logic will never be able to think rationally and reach a rational conclusion
Leave a Comment