2008 Woodie Awards
Study linking circumcision and AIDS ends over ethics
Wallace McKelvey
Issue date: 3/16/07 Section: Online
Studies performed in sub-Saharan Africa revealed that circumcision reduces the chance of HIV infection. The research was stopped in December because officials felt it was unethical to deny circumcisions to all subjects.
According to reports issued by the National Institutes of Health, which sponsored trials in Kenya and Uganda, there was a 53 percent reduction of HIV transmission among circumcised men versus uncircumcised men.
One of the trials, conducted by the University of Versailles, tracked the emergence of the virus among 3,274 men. Half of the men were circumcised and the other half were used as a control group. At the end of 21 months, there were 20 infections in the circumcised group and 49 among the uncircumcised. The trial indicates 60 percent increased protection against HIV for those who are circumcised.
Biology professor Carlton Cooper said the sample size was adequate, but the major limitation of the study was its short time period.
"A longer study needs to be done to confirm the observations of this study," Cooper said. "Assuming the results hold true, circumcision should be discussed and considered along with condom use to prevent HIV transmission."
Herman Ortez, the director of preventative interventions for the non-profit organization AIDS Delaware, stated in an e-mail message that circumcision is not a reliable method for HIV prevention.
"Unprotected sex is unprotected sex," Ortez said. "AIDS Delaware would not promote circumcision as a preventative intervention."
Tests like these are degrading to humans and irresponsible, he said.
"No one should be subject to a test if there is a known risk for an infection that has no known cure," Ortez said. "To treat people using this method is globally catastrophic."
Suzanne Tait, an HIV counselor coordinator at the Beautiful Gate Outreach Center in Wilmington, said she would not want people to think of circumcision as a safeguard against infection.
According to reports issued by the National Institutes of Health, which sponsored trials in Kenya and Uganda, there was a 53 percent reduction of HIV transmission among circumcised men versus uncircumcised men.
One of the trials, conducted by the University of Versailles, tracked the emergence of the virus among 3,274 men. Half of the men were circumcised and the other half were used as a control group. At the end of 21 months, there were 20 infections in the circumcised group and 49 among the uncircumcised. The trial indicates 60 percent increased protection against HIV for those who are circumcised.
Biology professor Carlton Cooper said the sample size was adequate, but the major limitation of the study was its short time period.
"A longer study needs to be done to confirm the observations of this study," Cooper said. "Assuming the results hold true, circumcision should be discussed and considered along with condom use to prevent HIV transmission."
Herman Ortez, the director of preventative interventions for the non-profit organization AIDS Delaware, stated in an e-mail message that circumcision is not a reliable method for HIV prevention.
"Unprotected sex is unprotected sex," Ortez said. "AIDS Delaware would not promote circumcision as a preventative intervention."
Tests like these are degrading to humans and irresponsible, he said.
"No one should be subject to a test if there is a known risk for an infection that has no known cure," Ortez said. "To treat people using this method is globally catastrophic."
Suzanne Tait, an HIV counselor coordinator at the Beautiful Gate Outreach Center in Wilmington, said she would not want people to think of circumcision as a safeguard against infection.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
J.Gamiel
posted 3/16/07 @ 9:06 AM EST
As a former student of UD, I am excited that an article on the research going into HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa was reported in the school newspaper. (Continued…)
Post a Comment