The Sub-Saharan Studies Were Flawed: Circumcision Does Not Prevent HIV/AIDS

If you are an adult male born in the United States, chances are that you are circumcised. This was most likely not your choice, but a choice your parents made for you. If you have thus far found both statements to be factual, you may not like what follows: male circumcision is unnecessary, harmful for both the individual and future partners, and does not reduce the incidence of HIV/AIDS.

While circumcision has been declining since the 1970's, every few years a new study surfaces purporting benefits to male circumcision. This has caused a resurgence of the circumcision debate. Most recently, studies out of three African countries claim a reduced incidence of HIV/AIDS by up to 60%. On the surface, this number looks great. However, these studies were methodologically flawed from the very beginning.

To be included in these studies, the participants had to be intact (not circumcised) and HIV free. They also had to agree to "avoid sexual contact during the 6 weeks following the medicalized circumcision". The experimental group was then given the following instructions:
"When you are circumcised you will be asked to have no sexual contact in the 6 weeks after surgery. To have sexual contact before you skin of your penis is completely healed, could lead to infection if your partner is infected with a sexually transmitted disease" and later went on to read, "If you desire to have sexual contact in the 6 weeks after surgery, despite our recommendation, it is absolutely essential that you use a condom."

Not only was the experimental group told to abstain from sexual contact for 6 weeks, but they also received sexual education including how to properly use a condom. This all happened while the control group was left unprotected (not instructed how to use condoms) and received absolutely no sexual education.

Further, if we simply compare the rate of circumcision in the United States related to the prevalence of HIV/AIDS, we see that we have one of the HIGHEST incidences. Nations that do not customarily circumcise have much lower rates, factored for difference of size of population.

To conclude, circumcision is not only unethical, especially when it's being touted as a miracle fix for a very vulnerable population, but it is also unnecessary according to most prestigious medical organizations world wide, and does NOT reduce the incidence of HIV/AIDS.



Sources:
"Male Circumcision Risk and HIV Infection in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine. 20 Oct. 2000.

"Flawed African Circumcision Trials Cannot Be Used to Inform U.S. Circumcision Debate"
Intact America. 2009. Web.

Rizvi, Ali. "Male Circumcision and the HIV/AIDS Myth" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com. 3 Sept. 2009. Web.

"United States Circumcision Incidence" U.S. Circumcision Statistics. Cirp.org. 14 Jan. 2012. Web.