Scientists from the Rakai Health Sciences Program in Uganda collaborated with researchers at the Bloomberg School of Public Health of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Makerere University in Uganda, and NIAID's Division of Intramural Research to assess the efficacy of male circumcision for preventing HIV infection. The large study, which received financial support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, found that male circumcision reduced the risk of HIV, genital herpes, and HPV infection, but not syphilis. The study advocates male circumcision to reduce the incidence of HIV infection.

To many, the decision to circumcise their child is either cultural (as male jewish babies receive their "bris" when they are seven days old) or preventative, as doctors tend to recommend them for sanitation purposes. But many people remain skeptical of the effects of cutting off a bit of the foreskin on the penis. Indeed, some studies suggest that male circumcision may reduce sexual pleasure in women, and possibly men.

But more importantly, just because something medically "works" doesn't mean people should feel obligated to use it. Research can easily prove that a diet of pure hamburgers increases the likelihood of coronary heart disease. Of course, we can enjoy a hamburger occasionally--but you only get one penis. It seams that frequently, both parties during sexual intercourse are plenty satisfied with the pleasure efficacy of the circumcised penis, and pleasure shouldn't necessarily be the only consideration when having sex. After all, most men report that sex is more pleasurable without a condom, but the safety measure of a latex clearly wins out in the cost/benefit analysis.

In this case, I strongly advocate the benefits of circumcision. but as a matter of principle, I think there's room to question the extent to which we let the efficacy of a preventative measure dictate our decision to go under the knife.

Published on September 15, 2009 in Medicine