Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the “circumcision solution” to the AIDS epidemic in Africa may increase it

blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: Why the “circumcision solution” to the AIDS epidemic in Africa may increase it

#41

Post by jes »

I am a 59 y/o male and an "Intactivist." Tomorrow morning, I'll be flying from my home in Kirkland, Washington, to Orlando, Florida, to join my colleagues in protesting non-therapeutic circumcision at the site where the AAP is hosting its convention. I routinely join the Bloodstained Men and their Friends in their various protests / education events. I also carry my various signs in front of a local hospital (Evergreen Hospital, Kirkland, WA) which performs NTC on healthy male infants and neonates when their parents request it. I also routinely speak against NTC in the public meetings of the Board of Commissioners for EGH.

I'm currently contemplating what kind of legal action I could take against the Board of Commissioners of the Public Hospital District that oversees the EvergreenHealth organization.

Over the last year, I have been sharing information with them. The management team of EGH has been relying on the AAP 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement as their justification for offering the harm they offer to parents. I have informed them that the Policy Statement expired in 2017, but they continue to defend the offering of this harm. I also submitted copies of a statement-by-statement refutation of the Policy Statement written by Dr. Robert S. Van Howe, who was (may still be) the Interim Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at the Central Michigan College of Medicine.

If anyone has any suggestions for me as regards what kind of legal action might be considered, to compel / encourage the Board of Commissioners to do the work necessary to decide for themselves whether they are harming healthy infants and neonates by continuing to offer this harm, I would appreciate it.

Re: Why the “circumcision solution” to the AIDS epidemic in Africa may increase it

#44

Post by cronix »

Analemma_ wrote: post #9
wirrbel wrote: post #4

The page currently times out loading, but from what I gather from the title, it seems that my distrust in the circumcicion against AIDS stories was on track. It always felt a bit like puritans trying to find empiric evidence for their moral and cultural traditions.

It’s unbelievable how far people will twist themselves in knots trying to find utilitarian justifications for what is, at the end of the day, non-consensual mutilation done for no reason other than “because tradition.”

When it's done on a woman, we call it "genital mutilation", but when done on a man it's "status-quo"

Re: Why the “circumcision solution” to the AIDS epidemic in Africa may increase it

#45

Post by cam_l »

gumby wrote: post #35
gus_massa wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's seams like a very bad argument for me. What about tonsil removal ASAP? He may decide not to do that. What about a lobotomy ASAP?

Her argument was very convincing against her position. However now you mention lobotomy...that might have made child rearing much simpler. A bit late for me, but you might consider proselytizing this issue for the good of parents everywhere...

Bonus that a child who had a premptive lobotomy would never regret the decision or wonder what life would have been like without it. There is literally no downside...

Re: Why the “circumcision solution” to the AIDS epidemic in Africa may increase it

#46

Post by freeflight »

nostromo wrote: post #20

This article is FUD. If the article raised some questions about the (multiple) studies that show the effect, I would just shrug and let it go. But then to go on and say it "may increase it" is irresponsible. There is zero evidence for this -- and in fact a lot of evidence to the contrary. [1] Yes, every study has limitations. The fact that you can't do a blind study or a placebo control with circumcision is just a fa…

> But then to go on and say it "may increase it" is irresponsible.

I would say it's actually common sense when you consider how HIV is actually transmitted and account for the fact that conditions, where the procedures are happening, are very likely far from ideal.

The whole thing represents a pretty pointless complication and infection risk, not just from HIV but all kinds of other nasty things.

If there's nothing wrong, there's no reason to cut off pieces from people.

Re: Why the “circumcision solution” to the AIDS epidemic in Africa may increase it

#47

Post by aurizon »

ivank wrote: post #3

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:blog.pr... Bill Gates doesn't seem to care that that science behind the project is terrible. It must have been pointed out to him, yet he was still promoting the project in 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ovf8GYfNbw&t=40s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFtSt862sKY - how much informed consent do you think was involved here? A lawsuit against PSI Zimbabwe, al…

The true science in this is:- Circumcision removes the skin that covers the tip as well as the glands that lubricate these surfaces and it dries out. The HIV virus can not penetrate intact dry skin, but it can penetrate the moist and thinner skin of intact males. This reduces infection, but not all. The opening at the top where you pee is still moist and the virus can enter there. It is well know the Jewish men have far fewer infections of assorted viruses, like HPV that causes cancer in women and that is why cervical cancer is rare in Jewish women.

Re: Why the “circumcision solution” to the AIDS epidemic in Africa may increase it

#48

Post by telchar »

nostromo wrote: post #27
robotbikes wrote: post #2

Basically I agree with this sentiment "So what should we conclude? Green et al. get it right: “Before circumcising millions of men in regions with high prevalences of HIV infection, it is important to consider alternatives. A comparison of male circumcision to condom use concluded that supplying free condoms is 95 times more cost effective.”"

That's as silly as focusing on teaching abstinence. Sure, it'd work... in theory. In practice, people don't like condoms and HIV rates would be largely unchanged. The best hope we have is to work on many fronts at the same time: education, condoms, voluntary circumcision, etc.

You're indicting the entire premise of modern safe sex. Either condoms are rarely used and people cannot be taught to use them reliably, or you're wrong. The low infection rate in industrialized countries with good sex education and readily available condoms suggests you're wrong. Contrarily, abstinence hasn't been demonstrated to work anywhere.

Re: Why the “circumcision solution” to the AIDS epidemic in Africa may increase it

#49

Post by telchar »

Retra wrote: post #33
telchar wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can add to that a large part of why circumcision was promoted in the US originally was to control men's sexuality (see: Dr. Kellogg[1] - incidentally he also promoted using acid to circumcise girls). You can bet that the idea of desexualizing African men appeals to a certain subset of fearful white Americans. That may be an inflammatory statement but if one looks at some of the more extreme corners of internet op…

You are attributing to malice what could easily be attributed to stupidity.

It's entirely fair to consider the possibility of malice as a subconscious motivation among some people. The very frequent blind application of Hanlon's razor seems to me to be almost worse than ignoring it entirely.

Re: Why the “circumcision solution” to the AIDS epidemic in Africa may increase it

#50

Post by Theodores »

spamizbad wrote: post #23
Theodores wrote: post #10

There is also the aspect of who has a dog in the fight and skin in the game. When you have Americans telling Africans to get themselves circumcised you do have to wonder what is really going on, particularly when there is this dubious level of 'science'. In the U.S. there is always the profit motive. Hence male circumcision is sold to parents as hygienic and beneficial, they go along with it and the hospital makes so…

For what it's worth, circumcision is slowly declining in the US[1]. We did not circumcise our son when he was born. The hospital asked us, we said no. No questions asked. We came fully prepared to justify our decision, worried that doctors would perform it by default or try to guilt us into it to avoid the spread of STDs. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/22/circum...

Well that is terrifying, the fact you have to think ahead like that, fearing what you might have to say, assuming a default.

Since it is a binary option with moral overtones and since your boy will eventually compare notes with his contemporaries you could gift him a story that sidesteps the matter.

The story might not be grounded in truth any more than Santa Claus is. The mythical backstory could be that it was decided on a coin toss, heads it stayed on, tails it came off. Maybe embellish it so that the doctor, his mum and yourself all had coins, it being a 'best of three' with the doctor calling 'tails', you calling 'heads' and his mum having the deciding coin.

Such a white lie can be useful for him when he needs to dig himself out of a conversational hole when he gets older so as to not have that awkward moment with a religious workmate/sister's boyfriend etc., even if by then he knows the story is a myth.

Post reply on HN