Here's my letter to the CDC. Feel free to give any feedback or suggestions for improvement before I hit "send."
In regards to the recent news headlines about recommending male circumcision for HIV, I have some concerns about the plausibility of using circumcision as a prophylactic measure.
1) Neonatal circumcision is surgery and carries risks, including bleeding, disfigurement, and death. An Atlanta boy and his mother were recently awarded 2.3 million dollars as payment for a botched circumcision, in which part of the boy's glans was accidentally amputated. A Canadian boy, Ryleigh McWillis, died from hemorrhaging to death following his August of 2002 circumcision, leading the Canadian government to further discourage parents from having the procedure performed.
It seems a bit far fetched, to say the least, to expose a boy to those real risks on the theoretical idea that he may be part of a population with risky behavior 20 years from now.
2) Circumcision violates a man's right to choose. If a grown man, after being presented with all the facts, decides on a circumcision, that is his right. However, subjecting infants to a non-medically necessary procedure which they cannot give consent to. violates those infant's right to choose how their genitalia look and function or if they want to use a more conservative approach such as abstinence or condom usage to decrease their risk of the HIV virus.
It is currently illegal to make a token cut on the genitalia of a female minor even if no tissue is removed. According to the constitution of the United States, all persons should be entitled to equal legal protection regardless of sex.
3) Typically proponents of circumcision cite only the short term risks of circumcision, while they unfairly cite both the short and long term risks associated with having an intact foreskin. Evaluations of circumcision as a preventative measure need to take into consideration the long term complications that can arise from circumcision, such as erectile disfunction, keratinization, painful erections due to excessive skin removal, meatal stenosis, skin bridges, sensitivity loss, etc.
I urge the CDC to consider those factors before putting a recommendation into place which would result in even more boys being exposed to those long term risks.
4) The Randomized Control Trials showed only a reduction in risk for female to male transmission, not male to female transmission, or male to male transmission. In addition, this reduction was only over a 2 year period, meaning that the protection was only for that time frame.
African culture is also much different than ours. Rape, dry sex, and other practices commonly practiced in African culture are not practiced in American culture. It is rather sketchy at best, to make a recommendation to circumcise millions of newborn males for a hypothetical benefit 15-20+ years down the road, based on studies conducted in another culture.
Please take these factors into consideration when making your policy decision.
In regards to the recent news headlines about recommending male circumcision for HIV, I have some concerns about the plausibility of using circumcision as a prophylactic measure.
1) Neonatal circumcision is surgery and carries risks, including bleeding, disfigurement, and death. An Atlanta boy and his mother were recently awarded 2.3 million dollars as payment for a botched circumcision, in which part of the boy's glans was accidentally amputated. A Canadian boy, Ryleigh McWillis, died from hemorrhaging to death following his August of 2002 circumcision, leading the Canadian government to further discourage parents from having the procedure performed.
It seems a bit far fetched, to say the least, to expose a boy to those real risks on the theoretical idea that he may be part of a population with risky behavior 20 years from now.
2) Circumcision violates a man's right to choose. If a grown man, after being presented with all the facts, decides on a circumcision, that is his right. However, subjecting infants to a non-medically necessary procedure which they cannot give consent to. violates those infant's right to choose how their genitalia look and function or if they want to use a more conservative approach such as abstinence or condom usage to decrease their risk of the HIV virus.
It is currently illegal to make a token cut on the genitalia of a female minor even if no tissue is removed. According to the constitution of the United States, all persons should be entitled to equal legal protection regardless of sex.
3) Typically proponents of circumcision cite only the short term risks of circumcision, while they unfairly cite both the short and long term risks associated with having an intact foreskin. Evaluations of circumcision as a preventative measure need to take into consideration the long term complications that can arise from circumcision, such as erectile disfunction, keratinization, painful erections due to excessive skin removal, meatal stenosis, skin bridges, sensitivity loss, etc.
I urge the CDC to consider those factors before putting a recommendation into place which would result in even more boys being exposed to those long term risks.
4) The Randomized Control Trials showed only a reduction in risk for female to male transmission, not male to female transmission, or male to male transmission. In addition, this reduction was only over a 2 year period, meaning that the protection was only for that time frame.
African culture is also much different than ours. Rape, dry sex, and other practices commonly practiced in African culture are not practiced in American culture. It is rather sketchy at best, to make a recommendation to circumcise millions of newborn males for a hypothetical benefit 15-20+ years down the road, based on studies conducted in another culture.
Please take these factors into consideration when making your policy decision.
