Back to the News 2007 page.NEW VISION, Kampala, Uganda, Monday, 5 November 2007.
By David J. Llewellyn
Dr. Myers Lugemwa is to be congratulated on his
insightful article on the attempt to circumcise Uganda
by US doctors. It is so obvious that Abstinence, Being
Faithful and Condoms (ABC) are the only rational
defense against the HIV virus, that it is hard to
believe that many in the international health community
have bought into the ridiculous "circumcise to prevent
HIV" theory.
The best way to prevent sexually-transmitted HIV and
all other venereal diseases is by ABC. It is that
simple.
It appears that there may be more to the push for
circumcision than merely the improvement of public
health. Some of those pushing this strategy have their
academic reputations and careers on the line. Others
have familial traditions that emphasise circumcision.
For example, Daniel Halperin, one of the foremost
proponents of the "circumcise to prevent HIV" movement,
admitted in a newspaper article years ago that his
grandfather had been a part-time Jewish ritual
circumciser. He has also been quoted as saying that
women like circumcised men and that sex is better if
you are circumcised — two very subjective
statements with which most uncircumcised men and their
wives would disagree. Others may feel the need to
validate their own circumcised status or academic
theories by encouraging others to be circumcised.
Two of the primary authors of the recent randomised
controlled trials recently have collaborated with
long-time proponents of circumcision on the formulation
of a pamphlet encouraging women worldwide to push their
husbands to be circumcised and to circumcise their
sons. One of those proponents, a circumcised
middle-aged Australian, the primary author of the
pamphlet, has written that circumcision is "an
imperative" for the 21st Century!
As the Trojans learned, one should always "beware of
Greeks bearing gifts," even if those "Greeks" are
Americans. Ugandans should know that one of the early
proponents of medicalised circumcision in the US, Peter
Remondino, M.D., in the late 19th Century advocated
circumcising all black Americans to prevent what he
called "the Negro rape crisis."
Modern day Ugandans may wish to consider whether or
not the US push to circumcise them has any similar
patronising, racist overtones or overtones of
colonialism.
We know that the foreskin is an integral part of the
penis. A recent study has shown that it is the most
sensitive part of the penis. Earlier unrefuted studies
proved that it contains most of the fine touch nerve
receptors in the penis. It may well mediate the
ejaculatory reflex.
It makes intercourse easier and more enjoyable for
both the man and the woman. No rational man would give
up his foreskin if he realised the sexual consequences.
It is immoral and unethical to remove normal,
sexually-valuable tissue from an infant or child, male
or female, without present medical necessity. Ugandans
should think twice about what they would be losing
before agreeing to circumcision for themselves or their
sons.
That Americans may still circumcise the majority of
their sons is not an example to emulate.
As Dr. Lugemwa points out, circumcision began in the
US in a vain attempt to prevent masturbation. Of
course, it did not work. But Americans became invested
with their circumcised penises and it has proven
challenging to change their minds. Nevertheless,
Ugandans should know that the rate of circumcision in
the US has been dropping slowly for the last 30 years
as the public has learned of the value of the foreskin.
In California and some other western states, the
circumcision rate for newborn boys is below 35%.
Ugandans should also know that circumcision did not
prevent HIV from wrecking havoc in the US. The US has a
much higher rate of HIV infection and a much higher
rate of circumcision than does Europe. This puts the
lie to the hypothesis that circumcision "prevents" HIV.
It is not a "vaccine," although its proponents would
like Ugandans to believe that it is. One might
reasonably wonder what the real motive is behind those
who would try to sell a mutilating surgery to others
with such hyperbole.
Ugandans wanting more information about the
controversy surrounding male circumcision might wish to
consult www.cirp.org or www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org.
The writer is an attorney at Law Atlanta, Georgia,
US
The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages are a not-for-profit educational resource and library. IntactiWiki hosts this website but is not responsible for the content of this site. CIRP makes documents available without charge, for informational purposes only. The contents of this site are not intended to replace the professional medical or legal advice of a licensed practitioner.
© CIRP.org 1996-2024 | Please visit our sponsor and host: IntactiWiki.