filtherton

Well, there are several studies which already show that there is a statistically significant effect. There are also plausible biological explanations for why there might be an effect. I'm fairly certain that the magnitude of effect seen is greater than the magnitude of effect required for the approval of new drugs. However, if you're waiting for conclusive proof in matters of public health, you'll be waiting forever. There are always doubts.

What I find questionable is the seemingly reflexive opposition to the idea that circumcision can affect HIV transmission rates. I don't think it has a bit to do with the science, and I think that the reactions that pop up- where people criticize the science without understanding it, or even taking the time to read it- support this assertion. There are ethical and emotional considerations that have nothing to do with the science, and these considerations are perfectly natural. I just think it's folly to attempt to hide these concerns behind half-baked criticisms of scientific fact.

I'm agnostic about circumcision. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter. I've got a son coming in a few months and we aren't planning on having him circumcised. There are better ways to avoid HIV than circumcision and my family is lucky enough to live in a place where those better ways are socially accepted and encouraged.

However, it is important to acknowledge, at least hypothetically, that there are places where safer sex isn't encouraged. Where certain Popes have made ridiculous claims about condoms. In places like this, assuming that an effect actually exists, it might makes sense to encourage people to get circumcised, because in situations where people aren't going to use condoms and aren't going to stop having sex, circumcision would be better than nothing.