NIH Circumcision Policy Circumspect

A coalition of international medical experts and bioethicists denounce the National Institutes of Health (NIH) endorsement of circumcision as a solution to the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa as being irresponsible.

George Denniston, MD (PRWeb) December 16, 2006 -- resident of the international group, Doctors Opposing Circumcision, says "The NIH suggestion is dangerous folly. Worse, the NIH plan will permit circumcised men to claim they are immune to HIV and engage in unsafe sex. In cultures where women are obliged to submit, this is a recipe for a human rights disaster to women on a massive scale. Safe-sex education and widespread availability of condoms are the only answers before a vaccine is developed."

Critics of the plan, which include the umbrella group International Coalition for Genital Integrity, note that traditional African cutting and scarring rituals, and even modern medical care, are both proven sources of HIV infection. Surgeries in villages where even clean water is a luxury are likely to prove risky. The coalition, which also opposes female genital mutilation (FGM), is also concerned that suggesting genital surgery is the solution to the AIDS crisis, ”will sustain FGM or introduce it where it is unknown, at the same time as the World Health Organization has pronounced the practice ‘genital torture,’” says Dan Bollinger, the group’s spokesperson.

The NIH has claimed that circumcising adult men is an effective way to stop the transmission of the virus that causes AIDS. However, even if true, this does NOT apply to America where the disease vectors are different and hygiene is not an issue. HIV/AIDS in Africa is spread by heterosexual transmission, while HIV/AIDS in the United States is spread by homosexual transmission and the sharing of IV drug needles.

Genital integrity groups are not the only ones questioning the NIH. Dr. Haanah Kibuuka of the Makerere University Walter Reed Project in Uganda has made the following recommendation to his countrymen, "Do not expose yourself to danger in the mistaken belief that since you are circumcised, you will not catch HIV."

Robert Van Howe, MD, Michigan State University says, “Factors such as the unknown complication rate of the procedure, the permanent injury to the penis, human rights violations and the potential for veiled colonialism need to be taken into account. Based on the best estimates, mass circumcision would not be as cost-effective as other interventions that have been demonstrated to be effective. Even if effective, mass circumcision as a preventive measure for HIV in developed countries is difficult to justify.”

# # #