CDC to recomend circumcision

[Martinus]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jIzjzyhnJn4ttGInSaFzYthkIIygD9AA39OO0

Circumcision doesn't protect gays from AIDS virus
By MIKE STOBBE (AP) – 20 hours ago

ATLANTA — Circumcision, which has helped prevent AIDS among heterosexual men in Africa, doesn't help protect gay men from the virus, according to the largest U.S. study to look at the question.

The research, presented at a conference Tuesday, is expected to influence the government's first guidance on circumcision.

Circumcision "is not considered beneficial" in stopping the spread of HIV through gay sex, said Dr. Peter Kilmarx, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, the CDC is still considering recommending it for other groups, including baby boys and high-risk heterosexual men.

UNAIDS and other international health organizations promote circumcision, the cutting away of the foreskin, as an important strategy for reducing the spread of the AIDS virus. There hasn't been the same kind of push for circumcision in the United States.

For one thing, nearly 80 percent of American men are already circumcised — a much higher proportion than most other countries. Worldwide, the male circumcision rate is estimated at about 30 percent.

Also, while HIV spreads primarily through heterosexual sex in Africa and some other parts of the world, in the United States it has mainly infected gay men. Only about 4 percent of U.S. men are gay, according to preliminary CDC estimates released at the conference this week. But they account for more than half of the new HIV infections each year.

Previous research has suggested circumcision doesn't make a difference when anal sex is involved. The latest study, by CDC researchers, looked at nearly 4,900 men who had anal sex with an HIV-infected partner and found the infection rate, about 3.5 percent, was approximately the same whether the men were circumcised or not.

Government recommendations on circumcision are still being written and may not be final until next year, following public comment. CDC doctors and many experts believe there is a good argument for recommending that baby boys and heterosexual men at a higher risk for HIV be circumcised.

The definition of "high risk" is still being discussed, said Kilmarx, chief of the epidemiology branch in the CDC's HIV division.

Circumcision is a sensitive issue laden with cultural and religious meaning, particularly when babies are involved, Kilmarx acknowledged.

"It's seen by many as more than just as medical procedure," he said. It's possible the government won't make recommendations but instead will promote an education campaign for parents about the procedure's potential benefits and risks, he added.

The prospect of the government promoting circumcision of infants has already drawn fire from an advocacy group called Intact America. The organization, based in Tarrytown, N.Y., parked a motorized billboard this week outside the hotel hosting the HIV conference, displaying the message: "Tell the CDC that circumcising babies doesn't prevent HIV."

"It's removing healthy, functioning, sexual and protective tissue from a person who cannot consent. You're mutilating a child," said Georgeanne Chapin, the group's executive director.

[Martinus]

I don't know who is more of a whackjob - him or someone mutilating their children's genitals in observance of some bizarre tribal moon-god ritual that offers no proven health benefits whatsoever.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that circumcision supporters should be forcibly sterilized, but I think we should seriously consider whether they are fit to have their parental rights left intact.

Were you aware that most north american circumcisions are not driven by any religious drive, and that there are proven health benefits (you know, the ones mentined by the CDC)?  That the legitimate debate over circumcision is whetehr or not those health benefits are "worth it"?

as the only medical practitioner who posted in this thread pointed out

Who's this?

Lucidor.

[Martinus]

What a wackjob. 

I don't know that he's much of a whack job when you consider that the primary reason most non-Jewish men have their boys circumsized in the U.S. is for purely aesthetic reasons. They want their kids to look like everyone else in the locker room. It is, in truth, the first cosmetic surgery a boy will have.

So it's a cosmetic surgery on non-consenting infants. You find it acceptable? What if parents wanted their children's ears to look like those of a bat? Or cover their infants' bodies with elaborate tatoos?

[Malthus]

What a wackjob. 

I don't know that he's much of a whack job when you consider that the primary reason most non-Jewish men have their boys circumsized in the U.S. is for purely aesthetic reasons. They want their kids to look like everyone else in the locker room. It is, in truth, the first cosmetic surgery a boy will have.

Except that this isn't at all true.   

The primary reason most parents who are not Jewish circumcize their children is for its alleged medical and hygenic benefits.

Are you seriously defending the notion that parents have their kids circumsized because they literally cannot stand the thought of the kids enjoying their intact foreskins when they can't? 

[Zoupa]

Wow, some of you guys are really passionate about this subject 

I shower. I use soap. I've had sex with quite a few women. I never heard a complaint.

I suspect that is the case for 99% of uncircumsized men in the western world. Get over it folks.

[Valmy]

Wow, some of you guys are really passionate about this subject 

I shower. I use soap. I've had sex with quite a few women. I never heard a complaint.

I suspect that is the case for 99% of uncircumsized men in the western world. Get over it folks.

I think you are taking this a bit too seriously.

[Zoupa]

 

[Zoupa]

Btw whatever happened to that school of yours?

[Valmy]

Nevermind I just read the rest of the thread.

Yeah I was just joking when I was mocking the uncircumsized earlier.

Still if I have sons they will be circumsized.  It is a tradition now.

[Valmy]

Btw whatever happened to that school of yours?

The Valmy School of Circumsicion?

[garbon]

"It's removing healthy, functioning, sexual and protective tissue from a person who cannot consent. You're mutilating a child," said Georgeanne Chapin, the group's executive director.

I'm surprised that the director of Intact America would feel that way.

[Sheilbh]

It is, in truth, the first cosmetic surgery a boy will have.

Speaking of male plastic surgery, I sat next to Rupert Everett in a cafe today

[Valmy]

Speaking of male plastic surgery, I sat next to Rupert Everett in a cafe today

Fantastic actor.

[Zoupa]

Btw whatever happened to that school of yours?

The Valmy School of Circumsicion?

No, the thing you needed a transcript from France for.

[Valmy]

No, the thing you needed a transcript from France for.

Oh yeah!  That went great I am starting my first class...in...an hour or so.

You were a huge help thanks a ton.