February 23, 2007
This tip is a lifesaver
Actually, it's probably more correct to say that the tip is a killer.
Scientists say conclusive data shows there is no question circumcision reduces men's chances of catching HIV by up to 60 percent - a finding experts are hailing as a major breakthrough in the fight against AIDS. Now, the question is how to put that fact to work to combat AIDS across Africa.
The findings first were announced in December, when initial results from two major trials - in Kenya and Uganda - showed promising links between circumcision and HIV transmission. However, those trials were deemed so definitive that the tests were halted early.
"This is an extraordinary development," said Dr. Kevin de Cock, director of the World Health Organization's AIDS department. "Circumcision is the most potent intervention in HIV prevention that has been described."
Circumcision has long been suspected of reducing men's susceptibility to HIV infection because the cells in the foreskin of the penis are especially vulnerable to the virus.
A modeling study done last year projected that in the next decade, male circumcision could prevent 2 million AIDS infections and 300,000 deaths. Last year, 2.8 million people in sub-Saharan Africa became infected with HIV, and 2.1 million people died.
Great news -- except if you're one of the anti-circumcision fanatics. But even for the anti-snip crowd, it's hard to argue with a relatively minor medical procedure that can save millions of lives.
But, if I may digress, there's a far more interesting question hidden within this article, one that goes to the "nature or nurture" debate that's raged for years.
Do we become the people we are because of our DNA? Is our destiny hard-wired into our genetic blueprints? Or are we shaped and molded by our environment, our upbringing, our diet?
Or even our names?
Was the head of the World Health Organization's AIDS department (mentioned in the passage quoted above) destined to work toward that lofty position, advocating circumcision to save lives when he was baptized?
If it wasn't true, you'd think I was making it up.
Posted by Mike Lief at February 23, 2007 11:32 PM
| TrackBack
Comments
I knew, just knew, as soon as I saw poor Mr. de Cock's name, that you would be powerless to resist some play on words concerning it. Drawn to it like a moth to a flame, right?
Posted by: JPC at February 24, 2007 01:57 AM
The socio-psycho-genetic implications of the story's subtext are what interest me.
And the Chaucerian aspects, too.
Posted by: Mike Lief at February 24, 2007 11:31 AM