Monday, 8 June 2009

Though circumcision cuts HIV rates, Aussie doctors will leave boys uncut, for now at least: Brisbane Times

1 comment:

  1. It's not enough to say that circumcision "cuts HIV rates" when a disease is rare, even by some impressive figure like 60%, without specifying from what, to what. A better figure is the Number Needed to Treat (NNT) and in the developed world it would take hundreds of circumcisions to prevent one female-to-male transmission - if the studies are accurate. (It doesn't directly protect women or gay men at all.) There are several good reasons to doubt the studies, carried out on paid volunteers who wanted to be circumcised by researchers who had a good deal to gain if circumcision is protective. (One now runs a circumcision clinic.) They ignored non-sexual transmission, and several times as many circumcised subjects dropped out, their HIV status unknown, as non-circumcised (control) subjects got infected.

    Infant circumcision is a human rights abuse. The Tasmania Law Reform Institute is rightly questioning its legality.