From Today's Washington Post
NOTE: The following post was truncated by vox and most of the content
is missing. The structure of this post was to set up the counter
arguments before presenting the arguments in favor, so the current text
is misrepresenting what was actually said. The backup of this post is
on my work PC and as such will be corrected on Monday.
----
Today's Washington Post featured an op-ed about the buzz of the public health world: Circumcision. Specifically, how circumcision may be the next life-saving intervention in the fight against HIV/AIDS. It's a heated issue. Circumcision, once standard practice in the United States, is on the decline. Many Europeans actively scorn the practice. The American Academy of Pediatrics hedges, leaving it up to the parents. I'm a bit neutral, myself. I don't have a penis. I don't have a boy
child to decide for. And when it comes to...practical application...
well, I can and have gone either way. I do confess to being puzzled, at times, as to why the same
organizations would fight female genital mutilation and support male
genital mutilation. However, it's also not that simple. Circumcisions
for men don't usually result in loss of orgasm and inability to urinate
properly. They are not done to keep men pure and free from the burden
of sexual pleasure. There is a big difference. My biggest concern about this is that circumcision will be viewed as the silver bullet for HIV/AIDS,
that will draw attention from the fact that it is just one weapon in an
arsenal that needs to include prevention and treatment. Both are
already suffering--prevention from this administration's emphasis on
abstinence, and treatment from...
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
I guess, your post didn't get published properly by vox. Perhaps you were going to add more to the post that is public at the moment. But still i would like to comment on your post.
However, You seem to have misunderstood the circumcision issue with regards to combating HIV/AIDS. By no means, circumcision will stop HIV/AIDS, but the research in this direction only seems to suggest that It does stops the spread of disease to some extent. And in case of an incurable disease like this, even such discoveries can save few precious Human lives. I suggest you to go through the following article from The Economist for a better understanding of the issue.
Indeed, the post seems to be missing about 3/4 of it, which I did not realize at all, so I can understand your comment.
Rest assured, I am well aware of the research and what it says and I do support such an intervention. My point was that I fear certain parties will perceive this as a silver bullet and therefore reduce attention on other tools in the fight: namely,
Indeed, the post seems to be missing about 3/4 of it, which I did not realize at all, so I can understand your comment.
Rest assured, I am well aware of the research and what it says and I do support such an intervention. My point was that I fear certain parties will perceive this as a silver bullet and therefore reduce attention on other tools in the fight: namely, behavior change communication, prevention, VCT, generic ARVs, and other treatment and support options. Given the magnitude and scope of HIV/AIDS worldwide, no single intervention is going to stop it.
My points regarding the actual procedure were to illustrate that despite the heatedness of the arguments, I can see a variety of sides in the debate over circumcision writ large, not just as a way to reduce HIV/AIDS.