I was very skeptical and bothered by a story stating that public officials may be pushing for circumcision of all boys born in the United States in order to reduce the spread of H.I.V.   As a result, I have read a number of articles of the spread of viri and foreskin and, wouldn’t you know it, there is no agreed upon standard.

The CDC states:

Several types of research have documented that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex.

The INFO project from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health states this may be due to:

The interior side of the foreskin has a mucosal surface which is more susceptible to trauma than the tougher skin of the penile shaft or the glans. Moreover, the foreskin contains high levels of HIV target cells (such as Langerhan’s cells). Indeed in a recent in vitro study of 14 foreskins, investigators from Chicago found that foreskin mucosal tissue had a 7-fold greater susceptibility to HIV-1 than cells in cervical tissue under the same conditions. Lastly, the presence of a foreskin appears to increase risk of ulcerative STDs such as chancroid and herpes, which are strong co-factors for HIV infection.

The International Journal of STDs & AIDs provides a different take:

In the late 1980s, several small studies conducted in Africa suggested an association between having a foreskin and a greater risk of contracting human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Some of these studies based their conclusion by looking at maps, some looked at high-risk populations, and others looked at patrons of sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics. Recently, however, several large random population surveys performed in Africa have found that circumcised men are more likely to be HIV infected. Despite inconsistent findings in the medical literature, there is a misconception that the foreskin places a man at greater risk for acquiring an HIV infection.

The amount of research on the subject seems to be limited and the few resources that are out there do point to the foreskin being a potential virus entry point.

At the end of 2006 roughly 1,106,400 people in the United States had HIV.  That is roughly less than one third of one percent of the total population.  No natter how much the government wants to call HIV an epidemic, it’s not. To put things in perspective there are roughly 2.5 Million women in the United State with or recovering from breast cancer.  Does that mean breasts of young women should be removed at birth?

Didn’t think so.

While we are comparing a communicable virus to a genetic mutation, the underlying principle is the same – remove a problem for the good of the public before it becomes a problem.  The bottom line is the government should not mandate what someone (anyone) does with their body.

Related posts:

1. Your son is safe; his penis not so much
2. Toyota developing solar powered green car
3. In another waste of money, U.S Government spends $178,000 to Study Why Prostitutes in Thailand Have High HIV Risk
4. Anyone hear this – U.N. troops called for at the Mexico-US border?
5. U.S. Will Pay $2.6 Million to Train Chinese Prostitutes to Drink Responsibly on the Job