I recently read a Plus News report entitled: Male circumcision does not protect women . There has been enough literature, media attention, and so on to see that male circumcision has been a hot topic over the years. My interest is not to disagree with the argument that male circumcision can, to a degree, reduce the risk of contracting HIV for that man. In fact, I support the idea of disseminating information and making male circumcision more accessible in Southern Africa. That is as long as the reduce aspect is thoroughly emphasized as male circumcision does not eliminate risk, the potential side effects are conveyed, and it is not an imposed procedure. The questions I do wish to raise concern the lengths that are being taken to scientifically prove the relationships between black African male circumcision and HIV risk for black African men and women. And relatedly, the potential for unintended consequences when the path followed is such a rigorous and relentless insistence on absolute, detailed quantitative scientific proof. My overall concern is this. The Plus News headline I mentioned could just as easily read: Clinical trial comes to an end, 25 women contracted HIV. When I think about that alternative headline, my mind goes a couple directions
Visit link:
Ethics, subjects, and proof