Strollerderby
Study: Circumcision Reduces HIV Risk By 50%
likely than uncircumcised men to be infected through sex with
HIV-positive women, whereas the AIDS vaccine has a target of 30% risk reduction, and may not be available for up to 20 years.
French AIDS researcher Bertran Auvert presented his
study’s findings yesterday at the International AIDS conference, which are based on 3,300 South African men, the largest study to date.
He encouraged the promotion of circumcision, and adaptation of the public health system, as part of a health initiative in Africa.
The idea that circumcision helps prevent HIV is not a new one, but health officials have hesitated to make it part of their overall HIV prevention strategy, because of it’s strong religious and social implications, and the risk of complications for those who choose circumcision, if the procedure is not performed correctly, or in unsanitary conditions.
With AIDS becoming increasingly widespread (there were an estimated 5 million new cases last year), and 2/3 of the world’s men being uncircumcised, it remains to be seen whether or not circumcision will be a viable means of curtailing the world infection rate.
Would this new information encourage you to circumcise your son, as a means of future HIV protection, whereas before, you wouldn’t have?
Go Back To Strollerderby
9 Comments
Anonymous commented on Jan 01 70 at 12:00 amMy husband, on returning from a photo trip in Malawi and the DRC told a great story from the trip. Upon arriving at a school, he noticed a line of about fifty 7-9 year-old boys, all excited, so he asked what the boys were lined up for.
“Oh, they’re going on a field trip.”
“Really? Where are they going?” he asked.
“To the health clinic.”
“Really. What are they going to do at the health clinic?”
“They’re getting circumcized.”
His expression made them all laugh.
“But they’re SMILING,” he said. “Wait, they don’t KNOW they’re getting circumsized, do they?”
“Oh no. We tell them when they get there.”
Those boys will never go on a field trip again.
I swear this is TRUE. He was there in November, just after the Madonna thing.
Anonymous commented on Jan 01 70 at 12:00 amYes, circumcision may reduce the risk, but there is still a risk. Besides abstinence, condoms are still a far better way to protect against HIV than circumcision. I would fear this study would create a false sense of security for circumcised men that they can risk having unprotected sex because the risk is lower for them.
Anonymous commented on Jan 01 70 at 12:00 amI wondered when I read about this in the NYTimes if there was any other important info that they left out. Like, for instance, were the circumcised men less sexually active for religious reasons or something? There really could have been major differences between the circ and non circed men. I don’t think it was addressed at all in the article I read. I just don’t know if I buy it all.
I wouldn’t circumcise my boy based on this study either…
Anonymous commented on Jan 01 70 at 12:00 amSomewhere I read that this study was discredited for “bad science”. Anybody else read about that?
Anonymous commented on Jan 01 70 at 12:00 amHow about not having sex with everything that moves?…
But seriously, this info doesn’t change my mind on circumcision. I did not and will not cut my son for any reason. Is there any other natural body part we cut off to keep it from catching a disease? No.
Too many studies that show benefits of circumcision get major press. Other studies that show the opposite don’t get such widespread review. Like the newest circumcision study out of Africa shows that traditional circumcision practices spread HIV through shared knives.
Anonymous commented on Jan 01 70 at 12:00 amCondoms really worked for me….I have a 17 year-old son. All three of mine are circumcised. But once again, that’s just me.
Anonymous commented on Jan 01 70 at 12:00 amPersonally, I expect my son to use a CONDOM (on his fully-intact penis) to protect him from HIV.
Anonymous commented on Jan 01 70 at 12:00 amI read about this study in the New York Times a few weeks back, and it makes me angry.
What information is being left out? Do these men not indulge in a post-coital wash-up? Why aren’t they wearing condoms? I appreciate that studies are happening, don’t get me wrong, but can we record the variables, too?
No, I wouldn’t have circumcised my son with this information. I intend to teach him about condom use, and hygiene. Wash that stuff!
Anonymous commented on Jan 01 70 at 12:00 am“Would this new information encourage you to circumcise your son, as a means of future HIV protection, whereas before, you wouldn’t have?”
If I lived in Africa, where there seems to be an aversion to using condoms, then yes. Since I’ll be teaching my sons to practice safe sex circumcised or not, then no, it doesn’t.
Add your take:
Note: Babble is a supportive, diverse community. We encourage a range of opinions,
but any unduly hostile comments will be removed.
Comments are delayed up to 15 minutes
The Walt Disney Company supports Babble as a platform dedicated to honest, engaged, informed, intelligent and open conversation about parenting. However, the opinions expressed on this site are those of individual parents/writers and do not reflect the views of Disney. In addition, content provided on this site is for entertainment or informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, or safety advice.