Circumcision: Not The Way To Prevent AIDS

Posting Date: 06/09/2000

In what I consider an illogical position, a professor of medicine at the University of Melbourne in Australia claims there?s mounting evidence that male circumcision can prevent the spread of the virus that causes AIDS.

Roger Short, M.D., says an analysis of 40 studies shows that circumcised males are two to eight times less likely to become infected with HIV because the surgery removes many of the receptor cells in the penis where the virus can penetrate.

text continues below

Visit the Circumcision Center

He argues that it?s best to circumcise babies, but adds that since it would be about 20 years before infants become sexually active, it might be more effective to do the surgery during a boy?s teenage years, according to a paper published in the British Medical Journal.

This doesn?t make sense to me at all since here in America most men who get AIDs are circumcised. How does he explain that? And circumcising teenage boys would result in pain, bleeding and psychological trauma that isn?t necessary.

Short says that of the estimated 50 million people infected with HIV worldwide, about half are men. Of these, about 70 percent have become infected through their penises and 30 percent through anal sex.

I don?t see how being circumcised makes any difference because AIDS is caused by a specific sexually-transmitted virus and people who are exposed are those who get the disease. This is usually through high-risk sexual behavior where the skin can be ruptured.

To protect against AIDS, we need to educate men and women to use condoms and practice safe sex. There are also new spermicides and ointments coming onto the market to help prevent sexually transmitted diseases.

It?s flawed logic to think circumcision will prevent the spread of AIDS. I certainly can?t see putting all boys through the trauma of circumcision based on this faulty line of reasoning.

Source: British Medical Journal, June 10, 2000