Hacker News Reader

Comment by exhilaration | Hacker News Reader

I found a big exception to your blanket statements:

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

View on HN

> There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%.

Saying there is evidence is not the same as evidence. AFAIK, this study was debunked because the result was not causal - it was that different class/cultural patterns among the sub-populations of the country were responsible, not the circumcision. But, there was already a massive stream of funding (Bill Gates included) for adult circumcision based on that faulty reasoning, and now it's too late to turn the ship around.

If only the contributors to this massive stream of funding had checked the debunking evidence you cite - oh, hold on . . .

Thats for infection Rates of men during heterosexual intercourse. These are already low: https://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/heterosexual-risk-...

So you'd be cutting the rate from 8 in 10000 acts to 3 in 10000. its something but theres probably more efficient ways.

Even if this is true there is absolutely no reason to do it during infancy to a helpless victim.

Perhaps the procedure could be offered to adults as a way to have safer sex without actually having safe sex.

I'm sure there are a lot of physical mutilations we could make to people that would reduce the chances of various diseases. Nonetheless, I think there's a moral issue in slicing up children (or adults) for this reason. Do our bodies belong to ourselves, to the government, to someone's god, or to the people around us?

Not that I'm saying you're advocating it; just continuing the train of thought.

Great point.

Nonetheless, I think there's a moral issue in slicing up children (or adults) for this reason. Do our bodies belong to ourselves, to the government, to someone's god, or to the people around us?

This feels like a platitude that overlooks the complexity of the issue. What rights do parents have over their children? Are they allowed to prescribe a religion? Are they allowed to prescribe a culture? Are they allowed to take their children to the hospital if they're sick?

Personally, I don't think male circumcision is that big of a deal, because it has little to no negative impact on a male child. Female circumcision, on the other hand, is different.

> it has little to no negative impact on a male child.

Really? Please link a study, published in a respectable publication, that compares physical and subjective sex performance parameters of the two type of men.

I'm sure there are a lot of physical mutilations we could make to people that would reduce the chances of various diseases.

Mastectomy or oophorectomy to avoid cancers in infants with BRCA1/2 mutations comes to mind.

And to follow the train of thought all the way - do children's bodies belong to themselves or to their parents? Parents (or Guardians) do have to make some decisions for their children, but perhaps should defer irreversible decisions on elective surgery until the child is old enough to have an opinion - boys and girls both. And if the thought of asking a 13 year-old girl if she wants to have her genitals modified gives you pause, perhaps consider how circumcision is any different?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com