Circumcision, Part II
Let's talk about circumcision one more time. I understand from the intensely emotional responses to my last post that a lot of people think that circumcision is cruel, unnecessary, and an inappropriate method of reducing the spread of HIV. Even if all that were true, it doesn't eliminate the scientific evidence.
Three randomized controlled trials took place in South African, Uganda, and Kenya. More than 11,000 participants were involved. They actually stopped the trials because the protective effect of circumcision was so strong that it was unethical to continue the experiment. They didn't find an increase in the number of sexual partners, so the effect is not negated. This was not a laboratory experiment. They tracked real men, living real lives.
Other studies have found that the prevention effect goes beyond HIV. Male circumcision was also found to reduce transmission of Herpes, HPV and Syphilis. The foreskin is especially vulnerable to infections. Removing that vulnerable foreskin has a protective effect.
You can tell me that you don't think that a 30-60% reduction, which has only been proven to last two years, isn't worth surgery. That's a fair argument. Or you can tell me that infant circumcision is cruel, or even that it's mutilation. You can point out that circumcision has a weird and creepy history. You have every right to think that this is a weak weapon in the arsenal against HIV. But your outrage won't make the science go away. Believing that strong emotions over-rule science is bad for everyone.
More Information
My co-bloggers on the autism blog have some great pieces on science and how to think about it:
Evaluating Research Papers, Reports, and Studies
COMMENTS (8)