Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search


Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

jr_114_9780195367195_bnr

jr_114_9780195383768_bnr

advertise-here4


FC-CO(SS)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • TJ on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • Christa on Must Law Practice and Scholarship be Exciting?

    • AYY on Privacy and Tattletales

    • Lsat Prep on Improving the US News Rankings: A Wish List

    • Lsat Prep on Fantasy Law School League

    • Legal Fact Finder on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • Observer on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • RJ on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • RJ on Ricci and Briscoe as Disparate Impact Cases

    • Mike Rich on Negligent Corpse Mishandling

    • anon on Privacy and Tattletales

    • orly lobel on At CELS, Hoping to Blog

    • harry brooks on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • RJ on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • Michael H Schneider on Negligent Corpse Mishandling

  •  

    Site Meter

Circumcision and HIV

posted by Sarah Waldeck

Both The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) are considering whether to recommend routine infant male circumcision as a means of reducing the spread of HIV.  For me, the debate is a reminder of how the medical practice is deeply intertwined with societal norms.   One example illustrates the point:  American-born parents would dismiss as ridiculous (or worse) the suggestion that they cut off part of their infant daughter’s clitoris to help prevent HIV.

First, the science.  Clinical trials in Africa have found that circumcision reduces a heterosexual man’s risk of contracting HIV from an infected female by up to 60 percent.  It is unclear whether circumcision reduces the risk that a woman will contract HIV from an infected male and “little to no evidence” that it reduces the spread of HIV between homosexual male partners.  But if circumcision reduces the overall prevalence of HIV among heterosexual males, that might ultimately lower the risk among other populations, particularly women.   As for why circumcision status matters, most likely the foreskin tissue is more susceptible to HIV than other parts of the penis.   (You can read more about the science here.)

Circumcision opponents argue that at most circumcision reduces risk.   It does not prevent infection and no-one would suggest that circumcised males do not need condoms.    They further argue that HIV spread patterns are different in the United States than in the parts of Africa where the studies were conducted; that American and African health systems are worlds apart; and that  homosexual males are the individuals most at risk in the United States.   They can also point to studies which challenge or contradict the finding that circumcision reduces the risk of a heterosexual male contracting HIV from an infected female.  At present, however, opponents of circumcision appear to be losing the medical battle. 

All of this must be terribly frustrating for those who advocate non-circumcision.   First, they are well aware of the American medical establishment’s history of promoting circumcision as a means of combating a variety of conditions (my own favorites are the Victorian examples of bowleggedness and masturbation).   Second, in recent decades circumcision opponents have achieved some  partial victories.  The current AAP recommendations are neutral on the question whether to  circumcise infant males .  The national circumcision rate has fallen to less than 65 percent from a high of more than 80 percent, with rates far below 50 percent in a few Western states.   The cumulative result of many different policies that have the effect of discouraging circumcision—most notably, the refusal of many insurance companies to pay for the procedure—meant that non-circumcision may have been creeping, slowly, toward a tipping point.  Indeed, this post originally had a sentence about how a woman of my demographic (white, Midwestern) was statistically unlikely to ever have seen an uncircumcised penis.  But then I realized that I have seen some in recent years, in the locker room at my gym where many mothers dress their young sons.   

The conundrum for advocates of  non-circumcision is that it is possible to acknowledge that circumcision reduces the risk of  HIV infection, but still argue that the procedure should not be routinely performed on all infants.  But this argument is a non-starter unless the listener is really willing to consider that infant circumcision is painful and traumatic, that it changes the male sexual experience, and that there is always a chance, however remote, that the physician will botch the procedure.   In a country where more than 60 percent of infant males are still routinely circumcised, our inclination is to dismiss these arguments.  If legitimate, then what have we been doing to our children?

As I have written about elsewhere, parents who are deciding whether to circumcise care more about the social aspects of the practice than about its medical effects.   The circumcision status of other males in the infant’s family matters a lot to American parents, as does whether boys in a locker room are likely to see circumcised or uncircumcised penises.   Circumcision opponents should be fearful of what the CDC and AAP is likely to recommend, but not simply because these organizations may promote circumcision.  Rather, the medical recommendation will reinforce the still-prevailing societal norm.  Some parents who are conflicted about the practice will ultimately decide to circumcise their boys  because of the medical recommendation alone.   But more are likely to consider the recommendation and predict that other parents will circumcise and thus that they should as well, lest their child be the odd man out.   Meanwhile, parents who were inclined to circumcise will be even more steadfast about the medical correctness of their decision.  All of this makes it extremely unlikely that the norm will tip in favor of non-circumcision.


 August 25, 2009 at 8:09 pm   Posted in: Culture, Sociology of Law   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (3)

  1. Scote - August 25, 2009 at 11:36 pm

    ” All of this makes it extremely unlikely that the norm will tip in favor of non-circumcision.”

    Well, in America at least.

    Good article. One wonders, though, if their are any other prophylactic pediatric excisions that can be justified on the basis that they might prevent harm to the child when he reaches adulthood. Perhaps prophylactic appendectomies? As it stands, circumcision does not benefit infants vis-a-vis AIDS even if circumcision may reduce STD’s sexually active adults–which may mean that circumcision falls outside the standard of care for pediatric surgery.

  2. Paul - August 26, 2009 at 7:51 am

    The more provincial Americans will most likely still opt for circumcision while the sons of parents who have passports and/or higher education levels will not be circumcised. This is true for the most part already.

  3. Hugh7 - August 28, 2009 at 3:37 am

    I hope you’re wrong, I’m afraid you’re right, but remarkably many of the responses to the current flurry of (sometimes ridiculously) pro-circ articles are pointing out their flaws. Maybe they’re just another self-selected sample and circumcising parents are not the blog-responding type. Or maybe the zeitgeist really is shifting. I’m sure the concensus was much more pro-circ a few years ago.

    I think the Internet is bringing the news to many people that circumcision is not universal world-wide, and in fact 7/10 of the world’s men, including many they admire, such as most football stars, are intact. And we are not filling hospital wards either with horrible diseases or heart-attacks brought on by excessive sensitivity.

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page

Solangel Maldonado

Website
SSRN Page

Gerard Magliocca

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Rachel Godsil
Alex Kreit
Anita Krishnakumar
Matthew Sag
Michael Zimmer






Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Frank Wu
Corey Yung
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress