1 post from June 2007

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...