Help wanted for methamphetamine research

Circumcision and HIV transmission

By Carl Schutt

The decision for parents to circumcision is controversial to some, while others think it’s a no-brainer. Despite how much education is out there, how many times I have explained to parents-to-be about how unfair infant circumcision is, the majority decide to go through with allowing a doctor to take a blade to their newborn son’s penis. It saddens me that most people “don’t get it” and that they believe that it’s not that big of a deal.

There are the usual unreasonings parents choose to mutilate their perfect, new-born son’s penis: foreskin is unclean (soap?); they want them to be like their father (what if the kid has different colored eyes than the dad- eye transplant? Or is missing an arm- additional amputation?); they’ll be made fun of in the locker room (seriously people?). The laundry list of ignorance trails on. Now there’s a new coal to throw into the foreskin-hater’s fire that has a bit of ground to stand on: circumcision reduces the transmission of HIV.

Let’s break it down: the inside of foreskin is a mucous membrane, similar to the inside of the eyelid or the mouth. When a male is circumcised, the glands on the head of the penis callous over since they are no longer protected by the foreskin and become less porous. The foreskin also has a plethora of Langerhans cells that are considered target cells for HIV infection. So circumcision will drastically reduce the chances of contracting the virus for sexually active men.

Studies coming out of Africa claim that circumcision reduces the transmission to a heterosexual male 55-60% (FYI: did you know that 79% of statics are made up on the spot?) during penile-vaginal intercourse. It does not reduce the transmission of HIV to the female. There is little to no evidence suggesting that it reduces the transmission of male to male partners, mainly because the studies only focus on heterosexuals.

But Australia is not Africa.