Log in

No account? Create an account
"In the city of my birth, I had a dream..."
Male circumcision as national policy? 
28th-Apr-2006 07:28 am
Nothing like a provocative headline first thing on a Friday morning...

Circumcision Studied in Africa as AIDS Preventive

The New York Times
April 28, 2006

JOHANNESBURG, April 27 — For well over a decade, southern Africans have battled the spread of H.I.V. with everything from condoms and abstinence campaigns to doses of antiretroviral drugs for pregnant women — and yet the epidemic continues unabated.

Now a growing number of clinicians and policy makers in the region are pointing to a simple and possibly potent weapon against new infections: circumcision for men.

Armed with new studies suggesting that male circumcision can reduce the chance of H.I.V. infection in men, and perhaps in women, health workers in two southern African nations are pressing to make circumcisions broadly available to meet what they call a burgeoning demand.

The validity of the approach is still being tested. But in Lusaka, the capital of Zambia, surgeons at the University Teaching Hospital began offering circumcisions for about $3 some 18 months ago and are urging the government to expand the service nationwide. Dr. Kasonde Bowa, a urologist at the hospital, says about 400 patients a month request the procedure — eight times as many as the surgeons can accommodate.

"One reason we decided to set up this service was the increasing evidence in the research in relation to reducing H.I.V.," the virus that causes AIDS, he said. "The evidence is very strong."

In Swaziland, the Health Ministry backed a workshop in January to train 60 doctors in circumcision, responding to what it called a surge in demand. Studies indicate that circumcision may protect against H.I.V., the ministry said, adding that the service should be more available.

"I've lost a cousin and an aunt," Nokuthula Sibandze said as she waited nervously with her 16-year-old son and 10-year-old nephew at a Swazi clinic offering free circumcisions in February. "I am trying to do the best for my children, and I have heard that if a male is circumcised there is less risk of infection."

Other policy makers in the region are holding back, waiting for direction from the World Health Organization. Officials there say the evidence so far, while intriguing, is not definitive enough to call for a shift in strategy on H.I.V. prevention.

The most striking studies suggest that men can lower their own risk of infection by roughly two-thirds, and that infected men can reduce the odds of transmitting the virus to their partners by about 30 percent, simply by undergoing circumcision. Research suggests that the cells on the underside of the foreskin are prime targets for the virus and that tears and abrasions in the foreskin can invite the infection.

But World Health Organization experts say it would be premature to recommend circumcision until results come in from two randomized controlled trials involving nearly 8,000 people in Kenya and Uganda. Preliminary results could be released by late June.

Data from earlier studies is "excitingly tantalizing, and the potential effectiveness looks pretty good," said Kevin O'Reilly, who is in charge of H.I.V. prevention for the health organization. But it must be confirmed, he said, "before we officially declare that circumcision is a policy that should be adopted by countries."

"We don't want to steer countries wrong," he said.

So far, southern Africa's H.I.V. infection rate, the world's highest, has resisted efforts to lower it. Only three sub-Saharan countries — Kenya, Uganda and Zimbabwe — have shown declines in the prevalence of the virus among adults, according to Unaids, the United Nations agency devoted to curbing the epidemic.

Of the nearly 5 million people worldwide who became infected last year, 3.2 million live in sub-Saharan Africa, the agency said.

Daniel Halperin, an epidemiologist and H.I.V. specialist in Africa for the United States Agency for International Development, argues that low rates of circumcision and high rates of multiple, concurrent sexual partners are the main reasons that the AIDS epidemic has raged in southern Africa but left western Africa mostly unscathed.

According to a study Mr. Halperin published in 1999, seven southern African countries, where fewer than one in five men were circumcised, had H.I.V. prevalence rates in adults of 14 percent to 26 percent in 1998. In nine western African countries, where more than four in five men were circumcised, H.I.V. prevalence rates were below 5 percent.

Researchers have suspected since the 1980's that such patterns are more than coincidence, and while the topic has long been a controversial one, many experts say the bulk of studies suggest that circumcision has at least some protective effect.

An analysis of data in 2002 cited by the Agency for International Development found that 38 studies, mostly in Africa, appeared to show that uncircumcised men were more than twice as likely to be infected than circumcised men.

Perhaps the most compelling evidence came last year from a study financed by the French government of 3,274 men outside Johannesburg. Half of them underwent circumcision; the others were uncircumcised.

After 17 months, 49 of the uncircumcised men became infected with H.I.V., while only 20 of the circumcised men caught the virus. The study was called to a halt in March 2005 when a review board decided that it would be unethical to withhold circumcision from the control group. Researchers estimated that the procedure reduced the risk of contracting H.I.V. by roughly two-thirds.

One study in February of the medical records of more than 300 Ugandan couples suggested that male circumcision also benefited women. In it, researchers estimated that circumcised men infected with H.I.V. were about 30 percent less likely to transmit it to their female partners.

Dr. Diana Dickinson, who has battled H.I.V. for years from her private health clinic in Gaborone, Botswana, is one of many clinicians in a quandary over how to react to such studies. On the one hand, she said, she wants her patients to be protected as much as possible. On the other, she worries that if circumcision is oversold, circumcised men may think they are free to engage in risky sex.

"I really worry about mixed messages," she said. World Health Organization officials warn that even if studies now under way confirm the benefits of circumcision, it must be viewed as part of a broader prevention strategy to promote testing, condom use, reduction in the number of sexual partners and abstinence.

"There never has been a magic bullet," said Mr. O'Reilly of the W.H.O., "and there never will be."

Other H.I.V. specialists are concerned that the studies may encourage unsafe circumcisions by traditional healers. Every year, the authorities in Eastern Cape Province in South Africa report deaths and amputations from botched circumcisions of young boys.

While many Western doctors routinely encourage circumcision of newborns, surgeons in government hospitals and clinics in southern Africa typically schedule circumcisions only if medically necessary. At Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital in Soweto, South Africa, the waiting list runs six to nine months.

To offer it more broadly, "you can imagine what kind of resources would have to be made available," said Dr. Martin Smith, head of the hospital's surgery department.

Although circumcision is not a custom among most ethnic groups in the region, studies in Botswana and elsewhere suggest that more than half of men would accept circumcision if it were free and done safely. Most say they think circumcision improves hygiene and sexual pleasure.

The few programs that offer free or low-cost circumcision have been swamped with applicants. Officials of the Family Life Association, a nonprofit organization in Swaziland, expected a few dozen volunteers when they offered free circumcisions in January. But about 140 men and boys showed up at its clinic in the Swazi capital, Mbabane. Doctors worked until 8 p.m. to circumcise 54 patients and told the rest to come back later.

About 10 men and boys returned in February, including a 28-year-old laboratory technician, a 19-year-old student and a 31-year-old unemployed father of four. Dennis Mkhonta, 44, a married government meteorologist, said he wanted to be circumcised for hygienic reasons. But he wants his 21-yearold son to do so because he is afraid of H.I.V.

"There is nobody who is not," Mr. Mkhonta said. "I tell my sons: protect yourselves."

Thulani Shongwe, 29, a health club attendant at a Swazi hotel, missed the Family Life Association's one-day advertisement and appears to be out of luck. For four years, he said, he has gone repeatedly to the government hospital to be circumcised, only to be told to try again another day. He said that "they give the impression they don't care much about it."

But he does. "It reduces the risk of H.I.V.," he said. Besides, he added, "my girlfriend wants me to do it."

Line up, boys. *cringes* (Never mind that we don't yet have all the facts in hand.)

I suppose there's something to be said, if you must perform circumcisions, for doing it when the child is a baby. That way, he won't remember any of it. (I hear recovery can be quite unpleasant.) On the other hand, it's also irreversible, and I know I'D rather my child make this sort of decision for himself AS AN ADULT. After all, if he behaves responsibly in bed, he might not HAVE to assume the surgical risk at all in the first place! Oh, and let's hope, while I'm mentally concocting best-case scenarios, that he doesn't contract HIV before the age of majority.

But then, I don't believe in pierced earlobes on female babies, either. (^^;
28th-Apr-2006 12:03 pm (UTC)
Circumcision ss irreversible but apparently there are things men can do to 'regrow' some lost skin tissue (stretching exercises and suchlike) though nerve endings are gone so sensation can't be restored. There are a lot of angry men out there who didn't have a choice. I agree it should be left up to the adult male after all it's a very important part of his anatomy. Medically it's unnecessary and studies have yet to prove effectiveness against HIV transmission.
28th-Apr-2006 05:12 pm (UTC)
Well, yeah, skin stretches (lots and lots), but somehow I suspect it's not quite the same. >_<

The article says that the preliminary results to the WHO study could be released as early as late June. It'll be interesting, undoubtedly, to see if they find any correlation whatsoever.

And, anyway, I bet the money required to institute programs of universal male circumcision in Africa would be better-spent on sex-ed and condoms...
28th-Apr-2006 12:50 pm (UTC)
I'D rather my child make this sort of decision for himself AS AN ADULT.


Nothing like having the knowledge that some weird and pointless mutilating medical procedure was performed on you wholly without your approval....

And um, let's just they're using clean scalpels in all this cutting ^^;;
28th-Apr-2006 05:15 pm (UTC)
Why do I feel like someone could turn this into a moral imperative??? "Because it discourages masturbation" isn't a good reason to circumcise for most Westerners anymore, so now it's become "Because it inhibits the spread of STDs"...there's so much ideology going on here that I'm instantly on guard.

And um, let's just they're using clean scalpels in all this cutting ^^;;

The cost of instituting programs to universally circumcise males would undoubtedly be quite impressive. Maybe the Catholic Church'll spring for it. :P
29th-Apr-2006 12:30 am (UTC)
It certainly hasn't scarred me for life. It doesn't bother me in the least that my parents made the decision for me when I weas a baby. It's not like there are any disadvantages to being circumcised. Or none I'm aware of anyway. It's really something that I don't have a strong opinion about, but I've never been able to understand the sometimes very strong opposition to the practice. To me it's no big deal either way.
29th-Apr-2006 11:17 am (UTC)
*nods and shrugs* Barring moral or practical imperative, given that circumcision is irreversible and SOME guys do after all get so loudly bitter about it, it seems safer to me to leave the decision up to the individual. But, as I said earlier, I don't think any irreversible alteration done to the body should be done lightly, even if its small tattoos or piercings or a nose job.

From a physical standpoint, I can't ever know exactly what it's like from either side...though women do have an anatomical "equivalent" to the male foreskin, and the thought for me of having that removed or shortened is decidedly cringe-worthy, to say the least. (And it's widely decried, falling under the female genital mutilation umbrella of practices to most Westerners who care about the subject.)
29th-Apr-2006 12:26 pm (UTC)
I've never encountered a guy who was bitter about it. In fact I've never heard of a guy who was bitter about it. Why are they bitter? I'm genuinely puzzled.
30th-Apr-2006 12:34 am (UTC)
*points above* doktor_x is on-record going back a ways saying he wished his parents hadn't allowed the doctors to *coughs* do it. And one of my college friends used to tell me about how her younger brother loved to whine about how their parents had "taken" his foreskin from him. ^_^;

Maybe this recent trend is an American thing...?
30th-Apr-2006 02:05 am (UTC)
Maybe this recent trend is an American thing...?

It must be. Foreskin Deprivation Syndrome. Or even Foreskin Envy. I've never known any men who've cared one way or the other. And the only women I've known who've expressed a preference have expressed a preference for circumcised men.

Some people just aren't happy unless they have something to complain about! ;-) Maybe they need to go through a process of grieving for their foreskins. Perhaps it's because they never had the chance to say a proper goodbye to their foreskins. Maybe (and I could see this happening in the United States) there’s a need for Foreskin Grief Counsellors. Perhaps these men need Foreskin Therapy. Perhaps they could learn to visualise their foreskins.

I’m getting very silly now, but I just can’t help myself. Bad Al!
30th-Apr-2006 02:11 am (UTC)
You see I tend to think about the women who have been circumcised against their will, female circumcision being of course totally different in both its effects and its intent. I also think about women who are raped, and women who suffer domestic violence. I think about people, both men and women, who live in grinding poverty in Third World countries (and those who live in Third World conditions in the United States). I think about children suffering from malnutrition. About children who die needlessly because they don’t have access to clean water. I think about women who die in childbirth because they don’t have access to medical care, and women who die because they can’t get safe legal abortions.

And then I think about men who are grieving for their lost foreskins, and I find I just a tiny bit hard to sympathise with them.
30th-Apr-2006 11:21 am (UTC)
Perhaps it's because they never had the chance to say a proper goodbye to their foreskins.

*dies laughing* Yeah, that must be it.

You see I tend to think about the women who have been circumcised against their will, female circumcision being of course totally different in both its effects and its intent.

Actually (and this is DEFINITELY an American thing), there was an evangelical "let's purify our bodies movement" that really started the process of mass circumcisions in the US. The people who gave us things like graham crackers and cereal to "purify" our digestive systems also, among other things, had this idea that circumcision would make people less sex-obsessed and therefore "cleaner." And I know less about the Jewish end of things, but I believe the circumcision rite also had its historical origins in a sex-negative attitude. (Judeo-Christianity is sex-negative in general.)
30th-Apr-2006 11:38 am (UTC)
Judeo-Christianity is sex-negative in general

Now there's the understatement of the century!

I must admit I know zero about Judaism. I'm not sure why being circumcised would make someone less obsessed about sex. It has zero effect. To make men less sex-obsessed would be a task of gargantuan proportions, but I really think you'd have to chop it all off, not just bits of it!
30th-Apr-2006 12:12 pm (UTC)
Well, they believed that it would cut down on masturbation...(but then, we believe LOTS of things that aren't true, now don't we? :P ) Also, if you're doing it like you did it in the old days, sans anesthesia, as a rite of passage, well, I would think that trauma might discourage somewhat for at least awhile. >_<

Obviously, the above point gets largely lost if you do it when the person is still a baby and is not going to remember anything.
30th-Apr-2006 12:25 pm (UTC)
Maybe it was supposed to serve as a warning. If you have wicked thoughts or do naughty things we'll chop the rest of it off.

I believe that it was not uncommon for the early Christians to submit to voluntary castration. Unfortunately not enough of them did it, and they failed to die out.

This page was loaded Jul 19th 2018, 3:07 pm GMT.