Despite a study
presented last month at the Third International AIDS
Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment in Rio
de Janeiro showing that male circumcision can reduce
HIV infection rates among sexually active men by up to
70%, activists--who call themselves
"intactivists"--are lobbying the United
Nations to declare the procedure a human rights
violation, Religion News Services reports.
The study,
conducted in South Africa, was the first to specifically
gauge the impact circumcision has on HIV transmission
rates. It showed that circumcision prevented more than
six in 10 potential HIV infections. Although the study
focused only on the impact of circumcision on men,
researchers say it also would likely significantly reduce
HIV infection rates among women because their male sex
partners would be at less risk of infection.
Based on the
study's findings, some AIDS experts are now saying
that circumcision should be seen as an effective HIV
prevention measure, particularly in poor nations where
condoms are unavailable or not socially acceptable.
But opponents to
circumcision say the procedure is a human rights
violation akin to female genital cutting. George Denniston,
president of Seattle-based Doctors Against
Circumcision, says circumcising a nonconsenting child
is not only unfair but should be illegal. He is
lobbying U.S. lawmakers to get them to outlaw the practice
on U.S. boys under age 18. Matthew Hess, president of
San Diego-based MGM.bill.org--named after the
"male genital mutilation" bill backed by
Denniston, is organizing a letter-writing campaign to U.N.
officials to get the organization to urge a worldwide
ban on the procedure. "I find it quite ironic
that the United Nations condemns female circumcision as a
human rights crime while it simultaneously encourages male
circumcision as a preventive health measure," he said
in a press release.
No members of
Congress have agreed to sponsor the bill championed by
Deniston and Hess. U.N. officials declined to comment on the
issue.