Louis J Sheehan
Loiuis J Sheehan Esquire
Louis J. Sheehan 14
Louis Sheehan 50005
50004 Louis Sheehan
no more
50003 Louis Sheehan
50002 Louis Sheehan
50001 Louis Sheehan
50000 Louis Sheehan
Louis J Sheehan 80
Louis J. Sheehan 85
Louis J. Sheehan 88
Louis J. Sheehan 90
Louis J. Sheehan
January, 2009
February, 2009
March, 2009
April, 2009
May, 2009
June, 2009
July, 2009
August, 2009
September, 2009
October, 2009
November, 2009
December, 2009
region 2.reg.0005 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 12:34 PM

Clinics offering discounted or free circumcision for men in sub-Saharan Africa are experiencing long lines and keen interest as word spreads that the operation provides partial protection against HIV and may offer other benefits, researchers report.

But governments in the region have been slow to embrace the measure. As a result, demand in many countries is far surpassing availability. http://louis_j_sheehan.today.com

“Right now, it’s a school holiday here and the clinics are absolutely packed with people,” says Robert Bailey, an epidemiologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago who is working on a male circumcision project in Kisumu, Kenya. The clinics where Bailey is doing research offer circumcision to boys age 10 and up, although most clients are men ages 20 to 25.

The experience in Kisumu is being replicated sporadically across southern and East Africa, areas where large swaths of men haven’t been circumcised and where HIV has hit the continent hardest.

Despite the lack of male circumcision in these parts of Africa, there’s long been an undercurrent in favor of the procedure in these areas, says Daniel Halperin, a global health expert at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston. In the 1990s, focus groups and surveys indicated plenty of acceptance for the operation, he says. Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

Around that time, researchers first documented that areas of Africa where male circumcision was widespread had fewer cases of HIV.

Now men in southern and East Africa are actively seeking out the operation. “They’re more energized,” says Ronald Gray, a physician and epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who has worked extensively in Uganda.

This cultural shift follows the release of three clinical trials in 2005 and 2007 showing that circumcision reduces a man’s risk of acquiring HIV by at least half. 

Those trials led to endorsement of the surgery by the World Health Organization, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief — key funding sources — as a public health measure against HIV.

African media have seized upon male circumcision as a hot story in the past few years, leading many men to openly pursue circumcision where it’s not the norm. In Uganda — where Gray is doing field work and where only one-fourth of males are circumcised — a musical group called the “Circ Squad” got circumcised and made a music video about the issue.

But the newfound circumcision chic comes with a problem: Although men and adolescent boys are queuing up in droves, many medical facilities in sub-Saharan Africa aren’t up to the task. In Uganda, Gray says, most men get put on a waiting list.

In neighboring Kenya, Bailey is seeing the same thing. “There’s much more demand than we can meet,” he says.

Despite increasing demand and even new sources of funding, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, African governments have been slow to promote circumcision as a public health measure and to mobilize resources.

Without subsidization from governments or outside agencies, the costs of the operation have limited it mainly to middle- and upper-class men. Even recently, Halperin notes, a public clinic in Swaziland that gets support from outside sources was charging about $40 for a circumcision, “not an insignificant amount for many African men,” he says.

The slow response — despite strong public demand — is the result of indifference shown in past years by international funding agencies and African governments toward the benefits of male circumcision, Halperin says. “If we had an AIDS vaccine that was half as effective as circumcision, the donors would have been all over it,” he says.

“Although evidence from the trials and biological work are very clear, it’s difficult for policy makers to get their minds around the idea that we ought to use surgery to prevent a disease,” Gray says.

Laboratory studies have tendered an explanation for the protection offered by circumcision. http://louis_j_sheehan.today.com Uncircumcised men retain soft foreskin around the head of the penis, providing an ideal region for HIV to infect. Circumcision removes this tissue, leaving only skin that’s toughened with keratin, a protein that resists viral invasion, Bailey says.

Make no mistake, circumcision is only partially protective. And some people have worried that men, once circumcised, would become careless and have more unprotected sex. But early studies of the issue show little evidence of that happening.

For men who are ambivalent about being circumcised, the new wave in Africa offers an opportunity to have a hygienic version of the operation in a clinic. For those who come from groups with traditions of circumcising boys, the clinical availability is safer than a traditional ceremony that carries risks of complications, says Neil Martinson, a public health physician at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Recent studies suggest that circumcised men are less likely to get other sexually transmitted diseases, particularly herpes and human papillomavirus, says Gray.

Halperin notes that men and women often cite sexual pleasure, perceived to be greater if the man is circumcised, as a reason for the operation.

Indeed, women seem to have plenty of say in the decision making, Bailey says. “Many women prefer men who are circumcised because of the hygiene issue,” he says. “And our clinics are packed with mothers bringing their sons in to get circumcised. “

Circumcising young male children raises a question of how to best allocate health resources, Martinson says. While it may seem to make sense in the long run to circumcise all boys, “that might divert resources to [infant] kids when there are 16- and 18-year-olds who should be getting circumcised and who have a clear, direct risk of contracting HIV,” he says.

Halperin says Swaziland, which has opened clinics on weekends just for male circumcision, and Botswana, with a government-funded promotional program, are leading the way among countries that currently have high HIV burdens and low circumcision rates. Rwanda is planning a large-scale male circumcision campaign focused on the country’s military and possibly university students. Zambia has received substantial outside funding to gear up a male circumcision program, but still has long waiting lists.

South Africa has yet to develop a policy regarding male circumcision. But in Orange Farm, just outside of Johannesburg, researchers with the French National AIDS Research Agency are circumcising and then monitoring young men in an effort to document the long-term effects on community HIV rates.  Surgeon Dino Rech, who works at Orange Farm, says doctors are circumcising 20 to 100 men per day, by far the largest program in South Africa.

The results of this study and the effect of mass male circumcision in Africa won’t be known for years, says Lawrence Gostin, an attorney at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, Gostin is working with UNAIDS to develop a checklist of issues that countries can use as they put male circumcision to work as a public health measure. These issues include safety evaluations for clinics, sensitivity to privacy issues and ensuring access to poor people and those in remote areas. The outline appears in the Dec. 3 Journal of the American Medical Association.

Still up in the air is the knotty question of whether to screen men for HIV before circumcision, he says. Excluding HIV-positive men and boys could constitute discrimination, breach confidentiality and cause stigmatization, Gostin and UNAIDS’ Catherine Hankins note in the JAMA article.

Safety will be a crucial issue. Since high complication rates from surgery could derail a campaign promoting it, countries will have to make sure clinics have sterile facilities, proper instruments, trained personnel and close follow-up of patients, says Ingrid Katz, an infectious disease physician at Harvard Medical School in Boston. Katz and Alexi Wright of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston discuss the issue in the Dec. 4 New England Journal of Medicine.


Found in: Body & Brain
Comments 8
  • The HIV circumcision evidence is at best fuzzy. No one really knows what the people did as to condoms, anal sex, drug use, dry sex. We do know condoms are very effective. Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

    We do know that male circ raises the level of male to female HIV. Also, female circumcision (FGM) has been "shown" to lower HIV transmission. Why does western medicine support one mutilation and not the other? The bad science argues that there is a decrease of from about 3.2% to 1.8% risk of getting HIV. That is still a risk. Why not just use the condom and skip cutting off 20,000 fine touch nerve endings. In the US there is a greater chance that a baby will get MRSA from the surgery than HIV or any of the things Brian Morris talks about below. In fact the most extensive STD survey shows cut and natural are no different as to STDs. However, intact/natural has no Premature ejaculation issues (caused by scar and loss of sensory feedback) and mutilated men (circumcised) get ED years in advance of men with a natural penis.

    The parts of the foreskin feel so good. Keep them, you will be happy you did when you are old.
    Submitted by: Jack
    J Perry J Perry
    Dec. 9, 2008 at 1:24pm
  • Actually, after I calmed down enough to read Brian's post, I have never seen so many mistruths about the foreskin posted in one place. If one in 3 gets a serious or fatal condition from having a foreskin over the course of a lifetime, is this Europe and South America's best kept secret? Foreskins have been around for 120 million years on mammals. If the defect rate was that high, there would be far less people on this planet. The cheery part about American statistics might sound believable, but I live in the US, and Brian Morris lives in Australia. Thanks for the blatant plug for your very pro-circumcision website.
    I guess this is like free advertising for you. Oh, and Brian, what is the percentage of people with penile cancer who are circumcised? 37%, according to Maden's research in the US. What is the rate of meatal stenosis, typically caused by circumcision? Estimated to be as high as 20%. That is one in five people who need an operation, to correct a problem that is typically only seen in circumcised men. What about buried penis, when they take off too much dorsal skin, and the penis hides under the pubic fat pad? Please respond. I would love to hear it.
    Tom Tobin Tom Tobin
    Dec. 9, 2008 at 11:20am
  • please, Brian. If the world can be said to have cheerleaders for circumcision, certainly you and Edgar Schoen would qualify.
    If you want to actually participate, please respond to and attempt to refute what others have posted. A simple pat on the back for bad science is not only gratuitous, it is spilling blood for no truly beneficial result.
    Tom Tobin Tom Tobin
    Dec. 9, 2008 at 11:07am
  • All well-conducted studies in the USA show that circumcision protects men against HIV infection (refs to medical scientific research in good journals can be found at www.circinfo.net). HIV arrived in the USA from Haiti, so predated other non-African locations. Circumcision prevents urinary tract infections that affect 1 in 6 uncircumcised men over their lifetime. These are highest in the first year of life and mostly confined to uncircumcised infants. Besides HIV, circumcision also reduces genital herpes, syphilis, chancroid, other STIs, thrush, human papillomavirus, penile cancer (1 in 600 uncirc'd males), inflammatory skin conditions and diseases that affect 10-20% of uncirc'ed males, phimosis (1 in 10 adolescent and adult uncirc'd males), chlamydia in both sexes, cervical cancer, genital herpes, chlamydia and other conditions in the female sexual partner. Circumcised men have similar sensitivity, sensation, sexual function and satisfaction.

    If uncircumcised, 1 in 3 males get a foreskin-related condition over their lifetime that requires medical attention, many will die from one of these. Others will siffer. Many of their female partners will also suffer considerable morbidity and some will also die because of a disease passed on by their uncircumcised male partner(s).

    Infancy is the best time to circumcise (under local anesthetic) since it is simpler, cheaper, more convenient, very low risk (only 1 in 500 have a minor, easily and immediately treated adverse effect), and gives the best cosmetic outcome. For more information see the biggest, most academically-sound review on male circumcision in the world at www.circinfo.net.
    Brian Morris Brian Morris
    Dec. 7, 2008 at 12:15am
  • Okay, I'll try again.

    In the September, 2006, issue of the "Journal of AIDs," a team of medical researchers including Professor King K. Holmes, M.D., Ph.D., leading expert on STDs in the U.S.A., published the results of their small statistical study showing that post-sex penis washing and male circumcision were independently associated with reducing the risk of HIV infections in a sample of 160 or so male members of the Luo tribe in Kenya. http://louis_j_sheehan.today.com

    Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire  The American studies of male circumcision your article cites as grounds for promoting this practice to reduce HIV infections in African countries are flawed because the research teams responsible for them failed to inquire about post-sex washing practices of the men they studied. So how to tell what was most responsible for the documented drop
    in HIV infections: the circumcision or the washing?

    I think the following analogy suggests how the resulting American-led campaign to promote circumcision will strike people should already underway statistical research on the effectiveness of post-sex penile washing vis-a-vis HIV infections confirm and refine the groundbreaking studies conducted by Holmes et al, and also by Nigel O'Farrell at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Diseases.

    The following analogy sums up my own thinking about how this circumcision campaign will strike members and protectors of tribes for whom it is customary to practice post-sex washing rather than male circumcision: If you want to improve the dental health of men with cavities in their teeth, does it make more sense to teach people about dental hygiene or to pull all their teeth out?

    Toby Marotta Toby Marotta
    Dec. 5, 2008 at 5:19pm
  • I posted a carefully written comment this morning. So far it has not appeared. Has there been a problem on your side?
    Toby Marotta Toby Marotta
    Dec. 5, 2008 at 4:50pm
  • It is especially disheartening that Science News does not question that the three major African studies were never completed, yet the wave to implement circumcision rolls on.
    When does science become scientific?
    If the science is so strong, perhaps someone should tell the AMA, the AAP, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the British Medical Association, etc.
    The AMA already got burned by Wiswell's unreproducible data.
    Tom Tobin Tom Tobin
    Dec. 4, 2008 at 12:04pm
  • Interesting. There are no studies purporting that circumcision prevents HIV in the US. We know better. Most Americans are circumcised, and yet our HIV infection rate is considerably higher than many European countries where circumcision is not generally practiced, such as Finland and Denmark. Why? Because Americans spend hundreds of millions of dollars on circumcision annually, even though there is no proven benefit. Medicine is not going to risk a cash cow. They look the other way when 'first do no harm' is brought up, regarding a foreskin, especially if they can sell it to a cosmetics company or a bioengineering company. These African studies were not finished. They had poor controls. Yet the western world is falling all over itself to circumcise ambivalent Africa. Nobody mentions the fact that circumcision severely damages or removes the two most erotic parts of a man, the inner foreskin and the frenulum. The head is a poor third in sensation. No one mentions that the female mates of these circumcised Africans may be at higher risk. There is no one who advises that these circumcised men don't need to use a condom. Wouldn't it be cheaper, more effective, and more humane, to offer them condoms instead of an amputation of questionable value?
    Circumcision has become a sacred cow in our society, like the instruments of recent high finance...beyond question.
    The likelyhood of it curing Africa's HIV epidemic is close to nil. Yet, just like investment banking proceeded with few asking any questions, the promotion of circumcision careens on. It is more than a little disturbing, especially to those of us who know what is lost.
<< Navigate to Thursday, April 16, 2009 Add New Comment
No records found        
Add New Comment
Your name   
Subject   
Content   
*Required fields

Louis J. Sheehan 14
Louis Sheehan 50005
50004 Louis Sheehan
no more
50003 Louis Sheehan
50002 Louis Sheehan
50001 Louis Sheehan
50000 Louis Sheehan
Louis J Sheehan 80
Louis J. Sheehan 85
Louis J. Sheehan 88
Louis J. Sheehan 90
Louis J. Sheehan