Promotion of Male Circumcision at IAS 2009 Conference Is a Mistake, Says NOCIRC of South Africa
AIDS Policy Makers Wearing Blinders to the Costs and Harms of Male Circumcision.
Cape Town, South Africa (PRWEB) July 11, 2009
The human rights group NOCIRC of South Africa (NOCIRC-SA), represented at the IAS 2009 conference this week, is urging AIDS policy makers to halt male circumcision rollout, calling the plan exorbitant, dangerous and unethical.
’The promotion of male circumcision sends the wrong message, creates a false sense of protection, and places women at greater risk for HIV. Men are already lining up to be circumcised in the belief that they no longer need condoms. Women and children may be the most harmed by the promotion of male circumcision,’ said Shelton Kaye, Co-Director of NOCIRC-SA.
New studies released since three highly-publicised randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on HIV and circumcision show that RCT results cannot be applied to the general population of sub-Saharan Africa or any other region. A 2008 study concluded that male circumcision is not associated with reduced HIV infection rates in the general sub-Saharan population. Another recent study analysed circumcision rates and HIV incidence in South Africa, finding that: ’Circumcision had no protective effect on HIV transmission.’
‘The RCTs conclusions are questionable. The only supported conclusion that can be drawn from the RCTs is that circumcision might delay HIV infection. Even if the RCTs’ claims were valid,’ Kaye said, ’a 2008 study found that increased use of condom promotion would be 95 times more cost-effective than male circumcision in preventing new HIV infections.’
’Especially troubling is the extraordinarily high rate of complications from male circumcision in Africa,’ Kaye added. ‘A 2008 WHO bulletin reported an alarming 35% complication rate for traditional circumcisions and an 18% complication rate for clinical circumcisions, Africa's overburdened health care system cannot handle the tens of thousands of circumcision complications that would result from mass circumcision campaigns.’
Studies have shown removal of the foreskin results in a less sensitive penis. A less sensitive penis, coupled with the reduced sensitivity afforded by condoms, encourages males to forgo condoms.
‘It is unethical for circumcisions to be carried out on adult males unless fully informed consent has been obtained,’ Kaye said. ‘The number of reports of African males agreeing to circumcision, so that they no longer need to use condoms, reveals they are consenting to the surgery without fully informed consent.’
Of particular ethical concern is the recent increase in advocacy for neonatal circumcision to prevent HIV. Neonatal circumcision destroys erogenous tissue and places newborns at immediate risk of infection, haemorrhage, penile damage, and in rare cases, even death. ‘When one considers the goal to potentially reduce, if at all, risk of acquiring AIDS 15-20 years later,’ Kaye said, ‘neonatal circumcision looks especially farfetched in comparison to other preventive measures.’
Kaye concludes: ’The promotion of male circumcision for HIV prevention is fraught with very serious logistical, monetary and ethical concerns. Proponents of circumcision have yet to suggest a long-term monitoring system to evaluate failure or success of the exaggerated claims based on three RCTs which contradict real-world population samples. While the world is desperate for a “silver bullet” to end the HIV epidemic, it should be obvious that male circumcision is not the answer that we have been waiting for.’
###
