Cake

Dec. 14, 2006 | AIDS researchers in Africa have long observed that HIV spreads most quickly in areas where male circumcision is not common practice. Now, trials conducted by the National Institutes of Health in Uganda and Kenya confirm that circumcision can dramatically reduce a man's chance of contracting HIV through heterosexual sex. The trials followed nearly 8,000 men, half of whom underwent voluntary circumcision. Researchers were so floored by the preliminary results -- respectively, the circumcized Ugandan and Kenyan men were 53 and 48 percent less likely to become infected -- that they felt a moral obligation to put a halt to the study.

Responding to NIH's announcement of the findings today, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, suggested that male circumcision could have far-reaching effects on the disease's spread: "While the initial benefit will be fewer HIV infections in men, ultimately adult male circumcision could lead to fewer infections in women in those areas of the world where HIV is spread primarily through heterosexual intercourse." A previous study estimated that roughly 6 million HIV infections could be prevented in sub-Saharan Africa through male circumcision, according to the BBC.

So the conundrum on everyone's minds is: Should circumcision be encouraged in areas where unsafe sex and HIV run rampant? Some would see it as an ethical no-brainer. It may be that, culturally, widespread circumcision is more easily adopted in sub-Saharan Africa than sweeping safe-sex practices. There's also an argument for spreading the word about the newfound benefits of circumcision in the name of comprehensive and honest sex ed.