Monday, February 26, 2007
|
|
CIRCUMCISION: As Good As An AIDS Vaccine?
|
|
Posted by:
Michael Medved at
6:04 PM
|
|
For more than ten years, medical science has provided mounting evidence that circumcision brings substantial health benefits. Last week, the release of data from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) made worldwide headlines and gave new impetus for an ancient practice.
“Circumcision’s Anti-AIDS Effect Found Greater Than First Thought,” the New York Times declared, updating the results of clinical trials involving 8,000 men in Kenya and Uganda. In December, initial analysis showed that circumcision reduced the risk of HIV transmission through heterosexual sex by at least 50%. The latest figures in The Lancet, the British medical journal, show that the actual risk reduction is closer to 65%.
“Look,” said Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which financed the trials. “This is a one-time, permanent intervention that’s safe when done under the appropriate medical conditions. If we had an AIDS vaccine that was performing as well as this, it would be the talk of the town.”
He said that the $15 billion U.S. AIDS initiative and the World Health Organization were considering paying for circumcisions in high-risk countries. Daniel Halperin, an AIDS specialist at Harvard, cited a positive trend leading to greater acceptance of circumcision among African men. A review of 13 surveys in different African communities showed that 29 percent to 87 percent of uncircumcised men said they would be willing to be circumcised as protection against AIDS.
For religious Jews, these developments look intriguing, but neither startling nor particularly significant. We’ve been circumcising our baby boys for 3,000 years because of holiness, not health. Some research may suggest medical benefits from this sacred rite, just as the Biblical dietary laws may (or may not) confer health advantages to keeping kosher. The point of both practices, however, isn’t physical, it’s spiritual: making distinctions in behavior (and even in the most intimate part of the anatomy) based on a covenant with God. Of course, we welcome the good news about using a timeless procedure to protect against a modern pandemic, but encouraging studies in the Lancet won’t alter our basic commitment to circumcision any more than some prior research eagerly trumpeted by circumcision’s opponents who deny the utility of the practice.
Meanwhile, there are various factors about this horrible plague of AIDS that deserve special attention from all those who take Scripture seriously.
For many years, we’ve known that the best way to contract AIDS is to engage in a practice (male homosexual “intercourse”) strictly prohibited by the Bible.
Now we learn that one of the best ways to protect against the disease is to follow a procedure solemnly commanded in the Bible (circumcision).
These observations in no way prove that AIDS represents some sort of divine scourge, or that a supernatural God goes out of his way to reward those who are circumcised.
The emerging facts, however, provide haunting reminders that the Bible doesn’t outline the way the world should work in some Messianic future, so much as it describes, with sometimes uncanny accuracy, the way the world does work in the painful and imperfect present.
|
|
back fire by justifying the dependency.
Without any anger or fear, the addict should “get” from all the people present that the situation is known and that he/she needs to go to treatment. Don’t allow stories of family problems and life’s troubles sway the attention off the point that the individual has a problem and needs to seek help fixing it. This is where the family’s preparation pays off.
Do not wait. Once you’ve gotten his agreement, get him admitted immediately. Therefore, you should have a bag packed for him, any travel arrangements made, and prior acceptance into a treatment. An intervention well planned has a high success
-----------------------------
smith
---------------------------------
[url=http://www.drug-intervention.com/washington-drug-intervention.html]Drug Intervention Washington[/url]-Drug Intervention Washington
|
|
|
|
|
I HAD MY SON'S CIRC THE DAY DAY THIS BLOG POSTED!!!!!!! I had serious considerations before getting it done. My own circ was done when I was an infant and I had to go back because it was done poorly. So I think if you get it done properly within the first week or so they won't remember. I care for my son greatly and I did not want to see him suffer, but in the end my wife and I, even though we are not Jewish, thought the benefits out-weigh the pain. |
|
I thought you would never address male circumcision despite your frequent radio segments criticizing tatooing and body piercing. I noticed you waited until you could ride on a press release about the so called "benefits" of circumcision. I am no fan of tatooing/piercing, but at least they don't involve amputating healthy functional body parts. Plus, this ritual mutilation is performed on defenseless INFANTS! Some religious "traditions" deserve to be ended.
Before the AIDS prevention claims, circumcision advocates used to claim it prevented p-nis cancer. Given the negligible incidence of p-nis cancer among both circumcised AND uncircumcised men compared to the incidence of breast cancer in women at one in nine, this line of reasoning would make an even better argument for infant breast apmutation.
All the backwards justification for circumcision is pathetic because it begs the question of "Why were you doing it BEFORE any so-called health benefit claims were claimed?"
I did some web surfing and found a site that claimed the origins of the Jewish practice of circumcision stems from their sojourn into Egypt. Egyptians practiced circumcision because they observed how snakes would shed their skins and decided it would be a good thing for people, too. Anyone have any corroborating evidence as to this explanation? |
|
If circumcision impacted the spread of AIDS, then the most circumcising major country (the U.S.) ought to have a low HIV infection rate.
In fact, the U.S. has more HIV than most other advanced countries.
Further, Europe doesn't circumcise and has less HIV.
Why, then, are we discussing a small sample in Africa?
Circumcision's persistence despite its failure to achieve any good has mostly to do with human folly.
The circumcision practiced in the Old Testament is a far cry from what happens today. In those times, circ was more or less a ceremonial bloodletting, with little tissue removed. Only when the Jewish authorities wanted to prevent commingling with the Greeks (around Jesus' time) was the procedure revised to remove all the foreskin, exposing the glans to the elements and making an internal organ into an external one.
To spell it out clearly: Walking into a Greek gymnasium with an exposed glans was not only poor manners (it suggested er*ction), but labeled you as a Jew for all to see -- as the Jewish authorities wanted.
Later, Maimonides declared this radical circumcision technique to be ideal for making the p*nis as "quiet" as possible, an attempt to suppress sexual desire. The Victorians picked up on the idea and used circ as a weapon against sexuality in general.
The whole sordid history of circumcision is available at cirp.org. Also, at Slate there's a wonderful testimonial from a Jewish woman who looked carefully at the facts and spared her son.
Let's be clear: Modern circumcision removes 1/3 of the penile nerve endings and half the skin of the p*nis. Who among us would voluntarily give that up?
Whatever God intended, we humans have made circumcision into a brutal exercise. There is no justifying what happens today with what was happening 5,000 years ago. |
|
In addition to observational studies, there have been several controlled experiments examining the effects of circumcision on HIV transmission among heterosexuals. Here is a link to a CDC page where anyone who is interested can read about these studies.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm |
|
|
Lydia is right. Paul's teachings on circumcision were given in response to Jewish Christians who claimed that Gentile converts had to become Jews, which meant that they had to be circumcised, before they could be admitted to the church. Paul vigorously opposed the "circumcision first" argument, and his teaching on the irrelevance of circumcision and other aspects of Jewish conversion for Gentile converts to Christianity eventually became orthodox church doctrine. As I read them, his comments are irrelevant to the modern debate about the utility of circumcision. Some Christians opt to circumcise their sons as a way of honoring the covenant God made with Abraham, as Christians believe that, through Christ, they become participants in that covenant in a spiritual sense. |
|
When the foreskin is intact, the glans is covered in mucous membrane when the foreskin is retracted. When circumcised, the glans is covered with skin. Perhaps the skin is less penetrable by the virus than the exposed glans from retracted foreskin.
Or, like I said, maybe circumcising tribes just don't visit hookers as much. |
|
Well, I think unless you are Jew and believe in that existing covenant, that circumcision is fundamentally wrong. There is no sound argument, other than the aforementioned, that is tenable. We don't cut off a small portion of a girl's breast tissue, so she has less of a chance of developing breast cancer later in life...
Michael, your first sentence, "For more than ten years, medical science has provided mounting evidence that circumcision brings substantial health benefits." is irresponsible, and it also shows your ignorance of the totality of research concerning circumcision.
AIDS is not a vaccine- or other mutilation-curable disease; it is a behavioral-curable disease. |
|
This whole thing is absolutely ridiculous, particularly if one considers the focus given to eradicating female circumcision in most of these African countries. As someone else said, genital mutilation is wrong period, even if it could somehow be shown to reduce HIV rates. If males and females are ever to be viewed as equal, feminists ought to stop invoking the weaker sex argument where they see fit and demanding that their genitals get some sort of special consideration.
Further, common sense would tell us that castrating every person that tests positive for HIV would go far in eradicating AIDS since they would no longer be able to have sex. Where is the study justifying that approach? It's cruel you say? So is unwanted circumcision.
Give me a break. |
|
Even if circumcision is "as good as a vaccine" (which is far from certain), that alone doesn't validate its promotion or implementation. A vaccine is ethical because it doesn't cut off a normal, healthy, functional part of the body. Circumcision does. We don't eradicate breast cancer by cutting out the breast buds of infants (though that would certainly do it). We don't decrease the likelihood of obesity, diabetes, and other overconsumption-related, life-threatening health problems by removing people's taste buds (although that might be effective). Why is that? We don't cut normal, healthy bodies for medical reasons unless there is some sort of pathology. We don't perform surgery on people unless there is something wrong with them. Except, of course, for circumcision. There are many less invasive, more effective ways of reducing/preventing AIDS than having a part of someone's body cut off.
As for the religious reasons for circumcision, you can't really believe Almighty God commanded it as a way to correct or improve his perfect creation?! The nature of biblical circumcision is SACRIFICIAL- the giving up of a GOOD. |
|
There are other verses, but these say it best.
Galatians 5:2-6
2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
|
|
I'll answer your question:
I'm an opponent of circumcision, and there are plenty of Christian meat eaters among us, including myself. I'm not a treehugger atheist vegan, but I'm definitely anti-circumcision. Circumcision is almost non-existent in Central and South America, and in Europe, only Jews and Muslims are circumcised.
It pains me to see all these American Christians saying it's a good idea to circumcise because the Bible told them to. Well, if they read the whole Bible, they would find that the New Testament told them they can and should stop circumcising. In the middle ages, the Pope even outlawed it.
I'm also an engineer so I can see through the numbers. You should not be enticed into circumcision by studies like these. The "huge" 50~65% reduction is a reduction of rate. So what really happened is the number of men who got HIV in the circumcised group was about half the number of men who got it in the uncircumcised group. It's important to note that circumcised men can still get it and spread it. The New York Times is not a medical journal.
Really, you only need to look at the American Academy of Pediatrics. They don't recommend it (but don't recommend against it, either, which is what all the other industrialized countries' pediatric associations do). They basically say - "well, the risks are low, but the benefits aren't big enough to outweigh the risks. so... just let the parents decide." Which to me translates into "we know it's not worth it, but it doesn't damage so much and it's a hot topic, so we'll stay out of it" |
|
Thanks for your post. It was very informative. I will say that having two small sons, we were caught in the middle of the controversy (crazy what is a controversy these days) of circumcision. I was circumcised when I was a baby, and we leaned toward it for our sons, too. We did lots of reading on it, and it seemed like many of the same folks who are against all nature of vaccinations, eating meat, eating dairy products, etc. were the ones who were most vocal about the dangers of circumcision. Our own pediatrician didn't seem to be too convinced one way or the other. He said there were studies that tried to show it was dangerous, and others that said it was fine and actually could help with problems later in life. We talked to a friend who is also a doctor, and she said there can be problems for the uncircumcised boys as they get older, related to hygiene of the member (if they don't keep things clean). She seemed to think that we were better off with him (our first son) being circumcised. We ended up having him circumcised and don't have any complaints. It seems to me like it is really a non-issue that shows just how far our society has come that it can cause such loud arguments for or against.
I would be interested to know enough about the sample size and the criteria that were used in the study, but I do find it interesting. I don't doubt there will be a competing study that finds exact opposite results will be on the near horizon.
My main question of the opponents of circumcision, how many of these folks are atheists or agnostics? I can see both sides of the issue, but I think that those who are vehemently opposed to male circumcision probably are so due to their own belief system (or non-belief system, if you will).
To Waitaminute: I think it is evident from the article that Mr. Medved is only speaking about male circumcision, as that is the basis of the study (not female circumcision). Female circumcision results in the removal of the source of much female sexual pleasure (clitoris) and is practiced in order to assure fidelity (by decreasing or eliminating the woman's enjoyment of sex). |
|
After my own circumcision I couldn't walk for almost two years.
|
|
by not having "homosexual intercourse" instead of whacking off the foreskin of the male organ? Seems like this would be a lot less painful in the long run.
Sekhmet,
Following a circumcision the glans of the male organ is exposed, NOT covered as the "covering" has been removed. |
|
|
|
I hope it's clear that Medved only advocates circumcision for men.
African countries also "circumcise" the external genitalia of females. The practice is associated with debilitating disease, difficulty in childbirth, chronic pain, often toxic infection and sometimes even death. The frequently torn tissues no doubt contribute to the AIDS tragedy.
The cruel practice has led to education and eradication campaigns.
I hope Mr. Medved is aware of this very different result and condemns it for women as sridently as he supports it for men.
|
|
My only question would be by how much the researchers controlled for other factors---a big one being differences in behavior between ethnic groups who circumcise and those who don't.
Let's take an example in medieval Europe: Circumcised men were much less likely to get trichinosis, but circumcising the uncircumcised in medieval Europe would do nothing to stop trichinosis---the real difference was that Jews and Muslims (pre-1492 Spain) did not eat pork.
Circumcising tribes in Africa may be poorer, may be more likely to follow a traditional lifestyle, and frankly may frequent prostitutes far less frequently than uncircumcised tribes.
If circumcision itself does help, my best guess would be that it either makes for easier cleansing of the organ in question, or more likely, that it makes sure the organ is completely covered in skin, which is less porous to the virus than the mucous membrane that covers the glans in the presence of the foreskin. |
|
|
|