I am *very* worried
Take a look at this report. And to start with, let's get the funny bit out of the way. The WHO's director of HIV/AIDS is called De Cock. Ho ho!
What concerns me more is the message some people may take away from it. This clinical link between male circumcision and HIV infection rates is not indicative of the 'correctness' of circumcision, since a huge number of details are missing; and also the study has been conducted in Africa, where condoms may not be widely available or culturally shunned (imho, there is no excuse for this; it'd be like denying someone their malaria prophylactic tablets on the basis that they dont need to visit mosquito-ridden areas). I am greatly worried that the pro-circ lobby will latch onto this and advocate infant male circumcision (IMC) as a blanket measure. It may also reduce AIDS funding into vaccines and other treatments, if a 'simple surgical alternative' is seen to be better and more cost-effective. NO, I say.
I can also chip in my 2p on the religious circumcision issue; certainly in a modern industrialised society with a certain standard of hygiene and medical service, there is no cause to hack bits off newborns. The 'religious command' motivation doesnt wash; a deity that commands the mutilation of children immediately loses my credibilty; I'm hardly going to molest children, just because some nebulous force issues writ. But this is highly emotive; and I'm not going to get carried away......
Cheery posts later!
What concerns me more is the message some people may take away from it. This clinical link between male circumcision and HIV infection rates is not indicative of the 'correctness' of circumcision, since a huge number of details are missing; and also the study has been conducted in Africa, where condoms may not be widely available or culturally shunned (imho, there is no excuse for this; it'd be like denying someone their malaria prophylactic tablets on the basis that they dont need to visit mosquito-ridden areas). I am greatly worried that the pro-circ lobby will latch onto this and advocate infant male circumcision (IMC) as a blanket measure. It may also reduce AIDS funding into vaccines and other treatments, if a 'simple surgical alternative' is seen to be better and more cost-effective. NO, I say.
I can also chip in my 2p on the religious circumcision issue; certainly in a modern industrialised society with a certain standard of hygiene and medical service, there is no cause to hack bits off newborns. The 'religious command' motivation doesnt wash; a deity that commands the mutilation of children immediately loses my credibilty; I'm hardly going to molest children, just because some nebulous force issues writ. But this is highly emotive; and I'm not going to get carried away......
Cheery posts later!
posted by J at 6:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home