Reply to Non Jews and Circumcision

Forum Index » Expectant and Postpartum Moms

Reply to "Non Jews and Circumcision - Question"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The science seems to support circumcision, though not strongly enough for it to override some people's concerns. See, e.g.: http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%2814%2900036-6/abstract.

I'm curious to see if the anti-circumcision people have legit, peer-reviewed studies backing up their claims regarding the risks they fear.[/quote]

But looking for the science to support circumcision is, in and of itself, a biased endeavor, because it assumes a) there is no harm to removing the foreskin, either short-term or long-term, and that therefore b), it's legitimate to do scientific research to determine the potential benefits.

Much ado has been made, for example, of the putative preventive benefits of circumcision with respect to preventing or minimizing the odds of contracting STDs, up to and including HIV. Setting aside the methodological flaws of the studies in sub-Saharan Africa of the studies purporting to show that male circumcision reduces the transmission of HIV (and the studies have been thoroughly critiqued, which I will not get into here) -- what about the potential benefits of *female* circumcision in preventing or minimizing the odds of contracting HIV? Most Westerners would throw a fit at even asking the question, because of cultural bias against female circumcision (i.e., it's always harmful, and there is never any justification for it whatsoever) and for male circumcision (i.e., because of the belief that at worst it is not harmful, there are potential justifications for doing it).

But: research in some African countries, such as Tanzania, has demonstrated an inverse relationship between female circumcision and HIV+ status. In other words, the more women circumcised in a region, the lower the rates of HIV+ status. Which, by the way, is the exact opposite of what researchers were expecting to find.

Here's a PowerPoint that summarizes some research findings from Tanzania and has citations of the studies:

http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/femalecircumcisionandhivinfectionintanzania.pdf

A similar study out of Kenya: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/iph_theses/98/

Now, granted, these are not randomized controlled studies, only observational -- because no IRB in the world would accept randomizing women to the female circumcision arm of a trial. Why? Again, because (in the accepted, majority view in the West) -- there can never be any justification for female circumcision. It is 100% a human rights violation, 100% of the time -- even if it's performed for religious reasons.

The point is not to advocate for female circumcision, obviously -- it's to point out the underlying cultural bias in scientific research on the benefits of male circumcision. That bias runs so deep that people don't question it. It's simply assumed that male circumcision is harmless and that the foreskin has no function but is simply extra skin. There has been far, far more effort put into scientific research justifying male circumcision for putative health reasons than there ever has been into understanding the structure and function of the foreskin. Doctors who circumcise know how to cut a foreskin off -- but they don't have the first foggy clue what it does.

[/quote]

This hasn't been substantively responded to, because it is spot on, I suppose.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics