(no subject)

[quizcustodiet]

This week's Science reports on a study which links male circumcision with a substantial reduction in the likelihood of men acquiring an HIV infection through heterosexual intercourse. Interesting stuff.

Caveats:
- no indication of whether circumcision affects the likelihood of already-infected men transmitting the disease
- Far from perfect reduction: about 65%. So it'll go horrifically wrong if this gets turned into 'I'm circumcised, therefore I can sleep around without protection'


Still, as I've seen a few discussions on the morality of what is often, in the West, elective surgery for infants, I thought it was interesting.

Comments

[shreena.livejournal.com]

This still wouldn't make me choose circumcision for a hypothetical infant son (and, in any case, it's not offered at British hospitals unless you've specifically requested it for some particular reason) on grounds that hypothetical son would, later on in life, be able to decide the level of risk that he is happy with when it comes to unprotected sex with men or women, whereas my inflicting elective surgery on hypothetical him is taking an unnecessary risk on his behalf.