Circumcision can be a solution to chronic urinary tract infections in young boys, as was the case with me when I was five.
I've also read that it makes HIV transmission less likely.
Not sure why either would be true, but at least the first is.
I've also read that it makes HIV transmission less likely.
Not sure why either would be true, but at least the first is.
Basically, it looks like there’s a consensus that for vaginal sex (and probably anal sex) it can reduce the risk of contracting HIV for the penetrative partner. It’s much less effective than condom use or something like PrEP, but it makes a lot of sense in some high risk populations. Right now it’s being actively encouraged in Africa. HIV has been exploding over there and, while condom use, tests, and PrEP are more effective, it’s hard to get a steady supply to the people who would benefit - and then hard to get them to use condoms/take PrEP/get tested consistently. It’s less effective, but it’s a one and done thing that will reduce the risk somewhat, so hopefully it’ll help put the brakes on.
I don’t think male circumcision makes a lot of sense in developed countries in most cases, since we have easy access to a steady supply of condoms, PrEP, and testing - as well as medicine to clear up UTIs and such. The medical community is somewhat divided though, so IDK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Prophylactic_usag...
This is a much better resource: https://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/the-troubled-history...
How about asking them before circumcising?
In the case of using male circumcision as a prophylaxis against HIV in Africa, the benefits seem much clearer (there’s an HIV epidemic running out of control), and the WHO guidelines are careful to say “Aimed at adolescent boys and men” in the title:
I don't get why some cultures apply it so broadly.
This is a phenomenal thread on the subject by a senior research fellow at Oxford:
https://twitter.com/briandavidearp/status/107916411478471475...
I take this as a warning to carefully consider ANY medical treatment (especially novel ones) where some corporation stands to benefit hugely.
Scientists, just like politicians, can be corrupted.
Science, particularly “expedited” science, can be manipulated to demonstrate whatever policymakers (and thus lobbyists) want it to show.
There’s one thing that cannot be corrupted - a healthy human body that I keep free of novel interventions.
If I’m on my deathbed and there’s a novel form of immunotherapy that was patented yesterday, then fine, I will try it.
But if I’m healthy, and and I’m offered a novel form of vaccine of an entirely new technology I will question it. Especially if it causes my own healthy cells (including heart, lung, brain and reproductive cells) to express a protein that leads them to be destroyed by my NK cells and cytotoxic T cells.
Now I’m sure there will be a authoritarian minority that will jump on this post and try to remove it, and who will try to remove me from HN. I’m sure you think you’re doing society a good deed. But bear in mind, the suppression of critique of novel technology can also contribute to widespread suspicion about that technology and the people pushing it.