22,335
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
removed 'uncircumcised'
<blockquote>In 2007, WHO and UNAIDS recommended “male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men.” Subsequently, WHO and UNAIDS endorsed programs to circumcise 20 million men in 14 countries in sub-Saharan Africa during 2008-15.[34] After 11.7 million circumcisions were reported through 2015, UNAIDS set a new target to circumcise another 25 million men in 15 countries during 2016-20. Through 2017, the US government supported more than 80% of these circumcisions.
WHO’s and UNAIDS’ recommendation was based on three studies in Africa that reported circumcised men were less likely to get HIV than intact (uncircumcised men). But what happened in those studies? In two of the studies, men who reported no sexual risks (no partners or 100% condom use) got HIV at rates more than half as fast as the rates for men who reported any unprotected sex. The third study did not report men’s sexual risks. One study tested most wives, but has not said if the wives of men getting new infections during the study were known to be HIV-positive or HIV-negative.
But criticizing these studies – how they were badly managed and reported<ref name="boyle2011" /> – does not get to the heart of the problem with circumcising millions of men to prevent HIV. Insofar as sex is a risk, men already have multiple options to protect themselves. And because there is overwhelming evidence bloodborne risks – most likely in medical settings – drive Africa’s epidemics (Chapter 6), it is irresponsible to put millions of men at risk for HIV and other bad outcomes from unnecessary operations.<ref>{{REFbook