Condoms 95 Times More Cost-Effective than Circumcision

[Justforfun000]

Oh gee! What a big fucking surprise. This is EXACTLY what I said would happen and ultimately would do more harm then good by taking the focus away from condoms. In cases like this I really hate being right.

'Growing Belief' Among Men In Swaziland That Circumcision Provides Complete Protection Against HIV, IRIN News Reports
05 Aug 2008

There is a "growing belief" among some men in Swaziland that circumcision provides complete protection against HIV -- a perception that is concerning nongovernmental organizations working to combat the spread of the virus in the country -- IRIN News reports. According to IRIN News, some public health officials in Swaziland recently have "lauded" male circumcision as a procedure that can reduce a man's risk of HIV.

Siphiwe Hlope -- founder of the Swazis for Positive Living, an HIV/AIDS support group -- said the "problem is not with the procedure, but the way it is abused by men, so that men think they are now immune from" HIV. She added that members of the support group are becoming more aware of an attitude that circumcision protects men from HIV while also providing an excuse not to use condoms. Although Hlope does not dispute the advantages of male circumcision in reducing HIV transmission, she said that gender dynamics in Swazi culture should be considered. "AIDS in Africa has a woman's face," Hlope said, adding, "People think the disease originates with women. Why? Because it is the women who are tested first, when they are about to give birth."

An unnamed Zambian physician who treats people living with HIV/AIDS at government hospitals said, "It's the law of unintended consequences," adding, "Introducing the procedure, there was insufficient attention given to cultural factors, attitudes and human psychology." The physician noted, "Many of the men I speak with think circumcision is like an AIDS vaccine. It's not. It's a useful tool to reduce chances of infection at a time and place where few other tools are available, but you can still contract HIV and pass it on to a partner."

According to a recent study by the United Nations Development Program, 20% of men in Swaziland consistently use condoms, which Hlope said might indicate that circumcised men did not stop using condoms after the procedure but had never used them in the first place. She added that education about the procedure should stress a clear and consistent message that it should be part of a variety of HIV prevention measures. "Until that happens, women will be infected with HIV this way, and ... male circumcision may do more harm than good if it is misused to deny women full protection," Hlope said (IRIN News, 7/31).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

© 2008 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/117249.php

Main News Category: HIV / AIDS

Also Appears In: Men's health, Sexual Health / STDs,

[Justforfun000]

I like being circumcised

Seeing how relatively new you are you've undoubtedly missed the many threads that have gone into great detail over this issue.

To try to sum it all up, many people including myself believe that circumcision causes a substantial reduction in ultimate sensation due to the removal of special parts of the foreskin that are very sensitive like the frenulum, meisner's corpuscles, etc. On top of this there is a very good study that actually did a PROPER measurement for once against foreskin sensitivity and circumcised men that showed a significant difference. It's been posted here. On top of THAT there are some people on the board here who have been circumcised as an adult and say that it was far better before they were cut.

Besides all of the semantic sensitivity arguements, the biggest issue here is whether it is ethical to force this on babies. Most here have seemed to agree at the end of the day that this should be an individuals choice alone and that a parent or doctor should have no right to perform this on a child without some valid medical reason at the time. Earlier claims of UTI prevention and penile cancer reduction have been essentially disproven as horseshit or so miniscule as to be worthless. What IS significant are the amount of botched circumcisions and related problems that have happened due to the unnecessary procedure. Ask Cairber about that and she'll throw quite a few stories your way as examples.

Bottom line is there is nothing wrong with being circumcised if you choose to do it yourself and you like it. People like me who would NEVER have chosen it and want what I should have had as my birthright can not exactly go and order a new one, can we?

[Cairber]

feel free to PM me for information. I'm sure everyone here has heard my rant before


Justforfun000- I would also recommend reading the other link I posted on what they are now calling "partial circumcisions" (which is the latest excuse for why circumcised men are still being infected at high rates).

I also have quite a few links here with the lead doctors from the studies and the WHO referring/comparing/insinuating that circumcision= HIV/AIDS vaccine. We can's even really say it's the fault of the men in Africa that they think circumcision means they are immune...

[Cairber]

I'm not knowledgeable in this at all. How does circumcising offer more protection, can somebody explain?

There is also another an argument that says Langerhans' cells are possible more susceptible to HIV infection; these cells line the foreskin and much of the female genitalia.

[Cairber]

sorry for the horrible typos. long day and nursing baby while typing does not mix...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yeah, because the Romans had skyscrapers and rush hours. :roll:

There were ten story Roman apartment blocks cramming Roman cities, and the Roman civil authorities banned wheeled vehicles from the streets between sunrise and sunset because of extreme congestion on the streets, forcing deliveries to be made at night. So, if that's the definition of modern civilization, the Romans count just fine, too.

That's not the point anyways. The point is that most people there can understand what condoms are good for and be educated into using them as seen in the example of Uganda in the pre Bush era. No need for mutilating them if only the right measures are taken.

Uganda is just one country in Africa--granted, I think circumcision is a noxious practice but I'm not entirely sure anything else will work on a broad application. Can the cultural factors in the success of the programme in Uganda be replicated? The problem is that AIDS is a staggering issue on the scale of Africa--and so are the logistics involved in general. Nobody is disputing that abstintence only education is laughable, or that circumcision in basically a gross immorality, but in a situation where a third of the population can be infected with HIV, gross immoralities may turn out necessary to stop further infections.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Uganda is just one country in Africa--granted, I think circumcision is a noxious practice but I'm not entirely sure anything else will work on a broad application. Can the cultural factors in the success of the programme in Uganda be replicated? The problem is that AIDS is a staggering issue on the scale of Africa--and so are the logistics involved in general. Nobody is disputing that abstintence only education is laughable, or that circumcision in basically a gross immorality, but in a situation where a third of the population can be infected with HIV, gross immoralities may turn out necessary to stop further infections.

But if the people think that circumcision is an AIDs vaccine, or has serious protective ability, then more harm then good is done.

[salm]

If you're going to invest in educating people into understanding that curcumcision is NOT an AIDS vaccine you can just as well use these resources to educate them into using condoms which are more effective and less cruel.

[Justforfun000]

If you're going to invest in educating people into understanding that curcumcision is NOT an AIDS vaccine you can just as well use these resources to educate them into using condoms which are more effective and less cruel.

Well put. I firmly believe that circumcision is nothing more then an insignificant benefit by merely prolonging the inevitable if they are fucking without condoms anyway, and at worst causing FAR more harm then good because of the misinterpretation of this procedure as a 100% preventative. Far too many men are going to hear what they want to hear as the news story I posted above has made demonstrably clear.

When it comes down to it, you could probably do studies showing other "helpful" practices like a 30% less chance of contracting HIV if KY jelly is used for lubrication since it reduces tearing, or a 40% reduction if all men were given antibiotics prior to sexual intercourse to treat chlamydia and gonorrhea which is known to increase the transmission rate substantially.

But is any of this really useful? None of these small percentages add up to any significant protection in the long run. The only TRULY useful method that will keep the infection rates next to nil are condoms because they are close to 100% when used correctly.

That's why this idiocy promoting circumcision is so pernicious. It's not an additional tool, it's a superfluous waste of time. The best it can do is simply delay the inevitable if these people are not using condoms anyway.

[Justforfun000]

And another article echoing the point...

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/117439.php

Male Circumcision - A Dangerous Distraction In The HIV Battle
07 Aug 2008

The human rights group, International Coalition for Genital Integrity, is continuing to raise concerns about the harms and costs of male circumcision at their booth in the AIDS 2008 conference in Mexico City this week, stating that circumcision programs will be a dangerous distraction in the HIV battle.

"Mass circumcision campaigns will result in hundreds of thousands of complications, and could make the HIV crisis worse," cautions spokesperson John Travis, MD, MPH, "There are already numerous reports of males lining up to get circumcised so they no longer will need to use condoms."

Recent studies show that male circumcision is not associated with lower HIV rates in the general population. One showed that the likelihood of circumcision being effective is nil. Another showed that condom programs are 95 times more cost-effective than circumcision. The ratio of physicians to patients in sub-Saharan Africa is much lower than in more developed countries. In Africa, there are 20,000 patients for every physician, compared to 400 patients in developed countries.

Dr. Travis further warns, "Male circumcision is a dangerous distraction in the HIV battle. Even if circumcision does offer some degree of reduced risk per sexual incident, individuals engaged in high- risk behavior are still at risk for HIV. And, circumcision does not protect women. Giving circumcised males and their partners the false impression that they are protected will make the situation worse by increasing risk-taking behavior. Further, mass circumcision campaigns will likely overwhelm the already overburdened African healthcare infrastructure and divert resources away from other needed and more effective HIV prevention strategies."

The published results of three African randomized clinical trials, conducted in optimal conditions with free condoms and extensive counseling, show that male circumcision was associated with lower rates of heterosexual HIV transmission during the 21 month to 24 month study periods. All three studies were cut short, and there have been no follow-ups.