Is circumcision ethical?

[LostInCyberLand]

I have been reading a lot about opposition to male circumcision happening lately at this time, with the story about a young boy called Chase in the US whose mother was jailed for trying to stop him being circumcised galvanizing many across the online world.

I have to say the more I read about the horror stories of what can go wrong with circumcision the more I find myself agreeing that circumcision of men and women is completely immoral and unethical.

When I read that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is fast tracking male circumcision in Africa, as a false promise to stop AIDS, I can't help but wonder about the ethics of all this when everyone knows that circumcision doesn't stop AIDS, only a condom does. So why not use a condom and put the money spent on unnecessary and costly circumcisions to better use?

A quick read through of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and I came across this passage which says how they are using a barbaric device the PrePex/ Shang Ring to facilitate this surgery in countries with a shortage of trained health professionals, with the WHO justifying the use of this device because it is "easy to use". To my mind it is a stone age device that has no place in the modern world.

A second approach is male circumcision, which reduces HIV transmission by up to 70 percent. Funding for circumcision is finally being prioritized, since the cost is quite low and the protection is lifelong. Over 1 million men ages 15?49 have been circumcised in 14 Southern and Eastern African countries with large AIDS epidemics, but that is only 5 percent of the total number who could benefit from the procedure. Even in the ancient practice of circumcision, innovation has the potential to make a big difference. The new PrePex and Shang Ring devices simplify the procedure and make surgery unnecessary. The first studies suggest that these devices are both safe and effective. (I will keep this letter G-rated by leaving out the pictures of how the devices work.) Botswana, Kenya, South Africa, and Tanzania are starting to show leadership by getting the message out to all young men that it is important to get circumcised. Kenya has made the most progress, circumcising 70 percent of eligible men. I will be very disappointed if, by 2015, any fewer than 15 million young men have chosen to protect themselves and their partners by getting circumcised.

source http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-W...al-Letter-2012

I find it hard to stomach these kinds of statistics when evidence shows more circumcised men get AIDS than uncircumcised men

http://joseph4gi.blogspot.nl/2011/05...event-hiv.html

I find it distasteful the way they are using the campaign posters of wives to tell guys why they should be circumcised, would the opposite work if we were to implement female circumcision?

http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com.au/201...campaigns.html

The whole industry is based around selling as many PrePex devices as possible, with countries embracing the practice and the promise of the lucrative handouts doing so will bring.

http://joseph4gi.blogspot.nl/2012/01...orts-with.html

I came across this organisation PEPFAR which is using more than $100 million dollars donated to 14 African countries to increase the rate of male circumcision to 80% as a way to prevent HIV.

Male Circumcision (MC)

UNAIDS and the World Health Organization (WHO) have issued normative guidance stating that male circumcision should be recognized as an additional important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men. PEPFAR supports MC as a component of a comprehensive HIV prevention program in sub-Saharan Africa, and is working to scale up quality MC programs as feasible and appropriate to the country context. In its next phase, PEPFAR is transitioning to a two-pronged MC assistance approach. This approach would simultaneously support the immediate demand for MC and allow governments to develop policies and the necessary infrastructure for more sustained service delivery.
The comprehensive MC interventions supported by PEPFAR include not only the MC surgery, but risk reduction counseling, sexually transmitted infection treatment, and HIV testing and counselling.

source http://www.pepfar.gov/press/strategy_briefs/138399.htm

According to the WHO website, they are using the PrePex device to perform adult male circumcision and state that they developed it because of the shortage of surgically trained health workers; so now they are allowing non surgically trained health workers such as nurses to perform the procedure. I can just imagine how many botched MC will occur as a result of this.

allow other types of trained health workers (e.g. nurses) to perform the procedure

source http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/maleci...ice_update/en/

Also the WHO website justifies the use of MC to prevent HIV by saying that it is 60% effective in preventing heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men. That percentage doesn't seem very high to me to justify such a extreme procedure, and especially not high enough to normalise such a procedure. Especially when men have available other non surgical options such as condoms which minimize the risk of HIV transmission by 99%. Then the WHO contradicts it's own argument later on by saying that MC provides only partial protection. So why pursue something that only offers partial protection when you can pursue something that offers 99% of protection. It sounds like WHO don't have a clue what their talking about.

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.

Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.

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

The argument for circumcision seems completely devoid of logic. I still can't believe MC is being justified by governments and WHO, UNAIDS, PEPFAR, Bill and Melinda Gates in 2015, on the false basis it is more hygienic, I never knew any of this was still going on. It just seems so unethical. Women are likely to suffer more urinary tract infections than men, yet nobody is calling for mandatory female circumcision.

I think circumcision is unethical and will be boycotting Microsoft products as a result of their support for it. I thought Bill was a logic based rational person who only took on scientific fact to base his decisions on, he has really let us down here. I won't purchase Microsoft ever again, even if it means they change their stance on this in the future. #BoycottMicrosoft #WHOhasnoclue

I only just discovered this information so my first post is a little long, but I am interested to know what others here think, I hope we can have a constructive discussion.