Writer seriously questions HIV study recommendations
I would like to comment on the article "How does male circumcision
protect against HIV infection?" by Robert Szabo and Roger V. Short.
I find the conclusions reached by these Australian
researchers incredible. It is difficult to believe that intelligent
individuals would reach such preposterous conclusions that mass
circumcisions would eliminate or prevent a variety of diseases including
the spread of the HIV virus.
It is clearly another study designed to promote and legitimize
circumcision. It is an attempt to save the albatross of which so many
males have become victims over the decades. The practice of circumcision
is rapidly declining and falling into disrepute. The end of this
dehumanizing and barbaric practice is long overdue.
One can only conclude that the study is a catharsis providing the
authors with a means to vindicate their own circumcision. Intact
males do not have the need to validate their wholeness.
Perhaps the authors of the study would state why they did not carry
out their study in the USA or Israel where the majority of men are
circumcised. Why didn't they research why circumcision has not
prevented the spread of AIDS in these two countries? And if it did, how
great an effect did it have?
Recently, the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta stated that the
USA had the greatest rate of increase and most rapid spread of AIDS in
the developed nations, surpassing many European countries where
circumcision rates are only a fraction of what they are in the USA.
Several studies in the state of New York and a recent study done by the
University of Chicago found no correlation between the spread of AIDS and
circumcision.
Several years ago, an Israeli newspaper reported that a hooker spread
AIDS to thousands of men, in Israel where most men are circumcised.
Circumcision should have prevented large numbers of these men from
getting the AIDS virus, as we are told by the Australian researchers.
Perhaps the researchers would explain why circumcision hasn't prevented
the spread of AIDS in Israel, if circumcision is such an important
factor, as we are lead to believe? Would not warning males to take
precautionary measures be more effective and logical?
Do Robert Szabo and Roger Short really believe that millions of
males should be circumcised and lose vital erogenous tissue in order to
prevent a few cases of AIDS? Are they suggesting that all teenage or
adult males will be promiscuous, become drug users or engage in practices
which may put them at risk of contacting AIDS?
Males who engage in practices which put them at risk - in whatever
situation - are aware of the risks that they are taking. If they are
not, would not logic dictate that an effective education program is more
desireable than mass amputations?
We are plagued by studies which seek to legitimize circumcision.
For years we were told that circumcision would
prevent prostate cancer. Today it is the second leading cause of death in
Canada and the USA. Circumcision would prevent penile cancer, we were
told. Today statistics in the USA have shown that penile cancer is an age
related disease and is also found in circumcised men even though they were
circumcised as infants. Urinary tract infections are deadly for males,
but easily treated in females. These are just a few examples of scare
tactics used to persuade parents into circumcising their sons. All very
convincing - but none of them legitimate.
For more than a century males have become victims of a practice for
which there were plenty of excuses - but no valid medical reasons.
It is not circumcision which needs to be studied, but rather the advocates
of circumcision and why their desire to mutilate another's genitals never
ceases.
We live in a civilized and democratic society where most of us have
the intelligence to decide what is in our own best interests. If we
decide to engage in practices which may put our lives at risk - so be
it . How many decisions are these researchers prepared to make on our
behalf? How many body parts need to be amputated? We do not need some
totalitarian grand daddy researchers making decisions for us.
In a democracy each individual has the right to choose what he wants
to do with his/her own body, not Robert Szabo nor Roger Short.
Rapid Response:
Writer seriously questions HIV study recommendations
I would like to comment on the article "How does male circumcision
protect against HIV infection?" by Robert Szabo and Roger V. Short.
I find the conclusions reached by these Australian
researchers incredible. It is difficult to believe that intelligent
individuals would reach such preposterous conclusions that mass
circumcisions would eliminate or prevent a variety of diseases including
the spread of the HIV virus.
It is clearly another study designed to promote and legitimize
circumcision. It is an attempt to save the albatross of which so many
males have become victims over the decades. The practice of circumcision
is rapidly declining and falling into disrepute. The end of this
dehumanizing and barbaric practice is long overdue.
One can only conclude that the study is a catharsis providing the
authors with a means to vindicate their own circumcision. Intact
males do not have the need to validate their wholeness.
Perhaps the authors of the study would state why they did not carry
out their study in the USA or Israel where the majority of men are
circumcised. Why didn't they research why circumcision has not
prevented the spread of AIDS in these two countries? And if it did, how
great an effect did it have?
Recently, the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta stated that the
USA had the greatest rate of increase and most rapid spread of AIDS in
the developed nations, surpassing many European countries where
circumcision rates are only a fraction of what they are in the USA.
Several studies in the state of New York and a recent study done by the
University of Chicago found no correlation between the spread of AIDS and
circumcision.
Several years ago, an Israeli newspaper reported that a hooker spread
AIDS to thousands of men, in Israel where most men are circumcised.
Circumcision should have prevented large numbers of these men from
getting the AIDS virus, as we are told by the Australian researchers.
Perhaps the researchers would explain why circumcision hasn't prevented
the spread of AIDS in Israel, if circumcision is such an important
factor, as we are lead to believe? Would not warning males to take
precautionary measures be more effective and logical?
Do Robert Szabo and Roger Short really believe that millions of
males should be circumcised and lose vital erogenous tissue in order to
prevent a few cases of AIDS? Are they suggesting that all teenage or
adult males will be promiscuous, become drug users or engage in practices
which may put them at risk of contacting AIDS?
Males who engage in practices which put them at risk - in whatever
situation - are aware of the risks that they are taking. If they are
not, would not logic dictate that an effective education program is more
desireable than mass amputations?
We are plagued by studies which seek to legitimize circumcision.
For years we were told that circumcision would
prevent prostate cancer. Today it is the second leading cause of death in
Canada and the USA. Circumcision would prevent penile cancer, we were
told. Today statistics in the USA have shown that penile cancer is an age
related disease and is also found in circumcised men even though they were
circumcised as infants. Urinary tract infections are deadly for males,
but easily treated in females. These are just a few examples of scare
tactics used to persuade parents into circumcising their sons. All very
convincing - but none of them legitimate.
For more than a century males have become victims of a practice for
which there were plenty of excuses - but no valid medical reasons.
It is not circumcision which needs to be studied, but rather the advocates
of circumcision and why their desire to mutilate another's genitals never
ceases.
We live in a civilized and democratic society where most of us have
the intelligence to decide what is in our own best interests. If we
decide to engage in practices which may put our lives at risk - so be
it . How many decisions are these researchers prepared to make on our
behalf? How many body parts need to be amputated? We do not need some
totalitarian grand daddy researchers making decisions for us.
In a democracy each individual has the right to choose what he wants
to do with his/her own body, not Robert Szabo nor Roger Short.
Sincerely,
John Sawkey
Box 578,
Yorkton, Saskatchewan
Canada S3N 2W7
John Sawkey is a retired teacher/ principal.
Competing interests: No competing interests