Mandatory Circumcision Not Cost Effective for HIV Prevention

Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2012-06-15 12:38

Article here. Excerpt:

'SAN DIEGO – Mandating circumcision in the United States would prevent 24 more cases of HIV than does the traditional optional approach to circumcision, but would increase costs by approximately $389 million, making it far less cost effective, an analysis of published data suggests.

The investigators assumed that the overall incidence of HIV in the United States is 27 cases/100,000 people and the lifetime cost of care for someone with HIV is $119,000, based on published data from government statistics and peer-reviewed studies. Using the $392 cost of a circumcision at their institution, they developed computer-generated estimates of the cost-effectiveness of mandatory or traditional circumcision strategies for various populations, said Dr. Sarah E. Drennan, a third-year resident in ob.gyn. at Ochsner Medical Center, New Orleans.

For the overall U.S. population, mandatory circumcision would prevent 494 cases of HIV at a cost of approximately $790 million. Traditional circumcision – in which the parents choose whether or not to circumcise a newborn – would prevent 470 cases of HIV at a cost of approximately $401 million, she reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

No mention at all of the ethical issues around it. Also no mention that by the same token, if removal of healthy genital tissue reduces the chance of HIV spread, then shouldn't the same be said of some level of female circumcision too? Oh yes, that's off limits. Male circumcision should be, too.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2012-06-15 12:40

...then wouldn't that also require that foreskin restoration (surgical and non-surgical) would be banned? Just how can anyone justify mandatory circumcision without taking steps to ensure that it won't be reversed at some point in the future, thus negating the alleged "benefits" of circumcision?

Where are the feminists in all this? Those same feminists who scream, "Get the government out of my body!!!!!!" Where are they when government invades a male's body? Do I hear crickets chirping?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by napnip on Fri, 2012-06-15 13:27

I find it very disturbing that this would even be considered in the United States. It's a disgusting human rights violation! To make circumcision mandatory would be to double the 117 deaths which already occur every year due to this unnecessary surgery. Many men grow to resent the fact they were circumcised, myself included. It's not cost-effective to forcibly cirumcise? How about making condoms and education more readily available? That would be far more cost-effective. And finally, why are they even listening to what ob-gyn's have to say? The only doctor with a valid opinion would have to be a urologist, someone who specializes in male genitalia, not female, for heaven's sake!

This makes me want to make a poster which says "My body, my choice applies to boys and men as well! Stop Forced Circumcision!"

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by xtrnl on Fri, 2012-06-15 20:24

You wanna see MGM come to an end? Let circumcised males rise up, hold their mothers down, and forcibly remove their clitoral hoods, THEN you will see male-circumcision come an end. Mind you, remove ONLY the clitoral hoods, that way it cannot be said that it isn't equivalent.

When women look at their own sons with fear, then and only then will MGM finally come to an end.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by napnip on Sat, 2012-06-16 04:34