CDC May Recommend Routine Circumcision

Contentious procedure reduces HIV transmission

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

In an attempt to slow the spread of HIV, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention might begin recommending circumcisions for all infant boys. The announcement comes out of this week's National HIV Prevention Conference in Atlanta. The CDC likely won't release a formal draft of the proposal for another four to six months, but speculation on it already has emotions flaring.

For more on the debate, we are joined by Dana Goldstein, public health reporter and associate editor for The American Prospect magazine; and Dr. Roy Gulick, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center.


Dana Goldstein and Dr. Roy Gulick

Hosted by:

Femi Oke


Molly Webster

Comments [10]


Wow, this would pretty much make the CDC irrelevant, wouldn't it? How perverted and idiotic.

Nov. 04 2009 01:17 AM

Circumcision should be mandatory. Removal of the useless clitoral hood and labia prevents vulvar cancer, improves hygiene, men like it, and quite frankly an uncircumcised vagina looks weird. There's no medical study supporting the belief that uncircumcised women have more sexual sensation. Labiaplasty - which is just circumcision - is now a popular surgery chosen by women in the U.S. Shouldn't it be done during the neonatal period when the pain won't be remembered?

Sep. 23 2009 10:48 PM

I believe that parents have NO RIGHT to choose to have their healthy intact sons circumcised. It is a violation of human rights! Routine infant male circumcision should be ABOLISHED! It is UNETHICAL!

Sep. 22 2009 05:10 PM

MAYOR BLOOMBERG gives a contract to Greenberg Traurig to operate Herbert G. Birch SPECIAL EDUCATION daycare centers for babies who are on welfare.

SPECIAL EDUCATION leads to prison. And GT lobbies for Zoley's private prisons that trade prisoners on Wall Street.

Therefore, Bloomberg channels babies to private prisons to trade them on Wall Street!

After I write to Bloomberg and explain his Cradle to Prison Pipeline, he sends Carl Rockhead to tell me that I need protection because it is the Illuminati who operate the private prisons. Then he sends John Brown to ask what I want. NO DEAL, BLOOMBERG!

Then he says that I am delusional and channels me to Dr. Wolfsohn at Gracie Square Psychiatric Hospital, but a psychiatrist and judge say that I am sane.

Now through the John's Hopkins BLOOMBERG School of Public Health, he wants to do botched circumcisions on our Black and Latino babies. MAYOR BLOOMBERG, TAKE YOUR HANDS OFF OUR BLACK AND LATINO BABIES' BRAINS AND PENISES!

Aug. 31 2009 11:09 AM

These half-baked studies just add to the exaggerations and myths, perpetuating this horrible practice. Most Americans are circumcised, unlike the rest of the world, yet we have one of the highest HIV rates. All men are at risk for penile cancer, but it only affects 1-in-100,000 older men. Should the CDC recommend surgery to protect girls against breast cancer? Wouldn’t antibiotics be a better choice than surgery for a UTI?

The 50% reduction in HIV may be true, but the studies really say that 1% of the circumcised men contracted HIV, compared to 2% of those still intact. Would you choose genital surgery to lower your risk 1%, knowing that real protected sex always includes a condom?

We correctly outlawed the circumcision of girls in 1996 even though the “benefits” are similar. Still we continue to cut away 20,000 nerves and 50% of the most sensitive skin because “It looks better” or “He'll look like dad”. Boys need equal protection, as promised by our Constitution.

Aug. 30 2009 09:21 PM

Circumcision does not prevent HIV. I know men with the disease, who are circumcised and men, who are intact, who do not have the disease, even though they were exposed by their partners. If we're going to do this, then why not remove the inner ear, to prevent ear infections, the eye lids to prevent conjunctivitis,the vulva to prevent inflamation, close the vagina, to prevent rape, etc, etc, etc. How ridiculous to violate infant boys, for something they do not even engage in. Let them make the choice, when they are old enough.

Aug. 27 2009 05:28 PM

Imagine making all women get radical mastectomy at age 21 to prevent breast cancer.

Aug. 27 2009 09:26 AM

"I would suggest the CDC recommend that parents talk to their kids about safe sex when the time comes for that"

I 2nd this!

Circumcision is a very traumatic event for an infant! Why do this when it won't prevent HIV!

I agree with both of these comments.

Aug. 26 2009 09:03 AM

Recommending routine circumcision for babies for HIV is completely ridiculous. HIV is not a disease you can get through the air or sharing toys. Having this be recommended by the CDC will put pressure on parents to circumcise their boys something that might not be beneficial for them in the long run. It could lend a false sense of reassurance that they are safe against HIV. I would suggest the CDC recommend that parents talk to their kids about safe sex when the time comes for that.

Aug. 25 2009 08:45 PM
Restoring Tally

Babies do not have sex. So, recommending circumcision as a way of reducing the chance of getting HIV is nonsensical. Let the adult man decide if he wishes to have a portion of his sex organ removed by circumcision. If the man is smart, he will wear a condom when having at-risk sex.

Second, having non-medically required surgery on an infant is a violation of that infant's human rights and bodily integrity. It is illegal to perform non-medically required genital surgery on infant girls in the US. Why is there a double standard that allows genital surgery on baby boys?

Many men are finding out that they miss their foreskin. They, like myself, are restoring their foreskin to regain what was taken from us at birth. See to read accounts of men who wish they had never been circumcised and are doing something about it.

Aug. 25 2009 01:02 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.