Circumcision tied to reduced risk of HIV transmission

[theryn]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16184582/

The NIH is strongly suggesting male circumcision in Africa as a way to reduce risk of HIV transmission in heterosexual males.

Would this make you more likely to have your son circumcised?

Comments

[color_so_loud]

i don't expect a baby to be having unprotected sex -- this is a surgery that can be given at any age. so, no. (and as an above commenter mentioned, i do not live in africa and the problem is not as prevalent in the US.)

[kthartline]

I don't live in Africa so it doesn't really apply to me here in Michigan, USA anyways. We here in the states have easy access to condoms to solve that problem...

[sarakenobi]

wow that sure is a load of crap. don't you agree its a little wonky to believe that something as insignificant as foreskin would actually reduce the risk of a sexually transmitted disease? wouldn't a, oh i don't know, CONDOM work better?

[missflorafauna]

regardless of whether you agree with circumcision (and I don't), it DOES reduce HIV transmission, unless you can show a methodology flaw in the replicated studies that have been done. Condoms do work better, but see my post above for some of the reasons why, practically, that hasn't really worked out as a solution in Africa (despite the efforts of NGOs and public health organizations).

[sarakenobi]

how?

[missflorafauna]

how what? how it reduces transmission? Foreskin is very rich in Langerhans cells, which are a type of cells that the virus strongly attaches to. In order to get access to the body, the HIV virus has to bind to a particular type of cells that serve as receptors, like "HIV has to gain access to the body and to do that it binds to particular cell types. "Langerhans' cells have been shown to be the major surface cell type involved in transmission of HIV infection to lymph tissue,2 where it eventually leads to a fatal infection. In addition, the highly vascular frenulum (the thin band connecting the inner foreskin to the underside of the tip of the penis in uncircumcised men) is particularly susceptible during intercourse to tears and abrasions that facilitate entry of HIV into the body

[swizzle_]

It's true that circumcisions reduce the spread of std's. including HPV, no matter what country you are in. But, as long as you know this you can educate your uncircumcised son to be careful.

[wouldthatbeokay]

So then, seriously, explain why out of all of the first world countries the US has the highest rate of circumcision AND the highest rate of sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV). CONDOMS prevent diseases, cut or not, not circumcision. As the bumper sticker says, "If circumcision prevents AIDS, why are my friends dead".

Honestly, it isn't about teaching your intact boy to be careful, it's about teaching your boy to be careful PERIOD. I cringe when I think of parents who think "I had my kid cut, I can get away with not teaching him about condoms" because they're going to be grandparents or worse at a very early age.

[swizzle_]

Well at that point you have to evaluate other cultural issues.

Everyone has to practice safe sex. That's a given. *facepalm*

[wouldthatbeokay]

Read some of the other threads, you'll see why I worded that the way I did.
The one I liked the best was "I'm doing it so that if my son makes a mistake in 18 years he won't have to pay for it the rest of his life" which sounded, to me, like it was implying he wouldn't/couldn't get HIV from unprotected sex but would be omgalmostguaranteed to get it intact.

[septembergrrl]

I don't know. Between that and articles like this, it is starting to seem like there's more evidence circumcision is beneficial than I expected there to be. I'm reluctant to perform unnecessary surgery -- but at the same time, saying "I don't expect my son to be promiscuous/live in Africa/be unable to get condoms/sleep with people with diseases" is not a guarantee the kid WON'T do those things. I have no way of knowing what the world or my son's life will be like in 2025, really.

I'm still not planning to circumcise, but it's something to think about.

[ever_abstract]

I don't trust scientific research from someone "David Fergusson of Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences in New Zealand. That is an undergraduate school.

I also don't trust evidence like that presented from a layperson at a New Jersey newspaper.

I do, however, trust the AAP.

[septembergrrl]

The article's originally from USA Today, not that that's necessarily more credible. But you seem to be right that the researcher might be suspect, or at least has an agenda. (I did a quick Google on his name to check his credentials and found he's also done anti-abortion "research," as shown by the link -- and thanks for prompting me to do that.)

My issue is the AAP decision is seven years old, and if there's better research now, that might outweigh something from 1999. It looks like the current research isn't so much "better" as "newer."

[ant_fugue]

With all due respect, AAP released it's guidelines just before those studies out of Africa started coming out in the literature. I have a feeling that they may be reversing their recommendation in several years again, in light of that research.