Article

What Is the Potential Impact of Adult Circumcision on the HIV Epidemic Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in San Francisco?

Department of Behavioral and Community Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Sexually transmitted diseases (Impact Factor: 2.75). 11/2010; 38(4):353-5. DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3181fe6523
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT With the help of a community-based survey, we assess the potential effect of circumcision on the HIV epidemic among men who have sex with men (MSM) in San Francisco. Only a small minority of MSM would both derive benefit from circumcision (i.e., were uncircumcised, HIV-negative, predominantly insertive, and reported unprotected insertive anal sex) and be willing to participate in circumcision trials (0.7%) or be circumcised if proven effective as a prevention strategy (0.9%). Circumcision would have limited public health significance for MSM in San Francisco.

0 Followers
 · 
76 Views
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Three trials have demonstrated the prophylactic effect of male circumcision (MC) for HIV acquisition among heterosexuals, and MC interventions are underway throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Similar efforts for men who have sex with men (MSM) are stymied by the potential for circumcised MSM to acquire HIV easily through receptive sex and transmit easily through insertive sex. Existing work suggests that MC for MSM should reach its maximum potential in settings where sexual role segregation is historically high and relatively stable across the lifecourse; HIV incidence among MSM is high; reported willingness for prophylactic circumcision is high; and pre-existing circumcision rates are low. We aim to identify the likely public health impact that MC interventions among MSM would have in one setting that fulfills these conditions-Peru-as a theoretical upper bound for their effectiveness among MSM generally.
    PLoS ONE 07/2014; 9(7):e102960. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0102960 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The principle of the child's right to an open future was first proposed by the legal philosopher Joel Feinberg and developed further by bioethicist Dena Davis. The principle holds that children possess a unique class of rights called rights in trust-rights that they cannot yet exercise, but which they will be able to exercise when they reach maturity. Parents should not, therefore, take actions that permanently foreclose on or pre-empt the future options of their children, but leave them the greatest possible scope for exercising personal life choices in adulthood. Davis particularly applies the principle to genetic counselling, arguing that parents should not take deliberate steps to create physically abnormal children, and to religion, arguing that while parents are entitled to bring their children up in accordance with their own values, they are not entitled to inflict physical or mental harm, neither by omission nor commission. In this paper, I aim to elucidate the open future principle, and consider whether it is applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys, whether performed for cultural/religious or for prophylactic/health reasons. I argue that the principle is highly applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision, and conclude that non-therapeutic circumcision would be a violation of the child's right to an open future, and thus objectionable from both an ethical and a human rights perspective.
    Journal of medical ethics 01/2013; 39(7). DOI:10.1136/medethics-2012-101182 · 1.69 Impact Factor