WHO in Africa

[matgb]

nhw I couldn't possibly comment:

If you think that it is childish and culturally insensitive to find it funny when people happen to have names that are peculiarly appropriate to their professional function, then I urge you not to read this article; because if you do, you will find out who the World Health Organisation has put in charge of publicising their new report on male circumcision, and you may find yourself tempted to inappropriate mirth.

The article he mentions?
BBC NEWS | Health | WHO agrees HIV circumcision plan:

Kevin De Cock, director of HIV/AIDS at the World Health Organization said: "The recommendations represent a significant step forward in HIV prevention."

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. I mean, it's a damn fine scheme, and the science behind it is weird, but, still...

And for those with gameforce on your friends list? Yeah, I goofed, my client sent it to the wrong place. D'oh!

Comments

[ginasketch.livejournal.com]

hahahaha.

That's the second time in two days I've seen a name like that.

[kcontheroad.livejournal.com]

Interesting. It was not long ago that SB held a very long discussion in her LJ concerning male circumcision.

The name is priceless.

Another one I keep hearing is General Petraeus who is the current commander of US forces in Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus

Whenever I hear his name, it sounds to me like General Betray Us. PARTICULARLY the way Bush says it.

[matgb]

Betray Us. Ouch. Um, does Bush ever pronounce anything right?

*delay caused by searching and failing to find post in question*

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

Curse my lack of icon selecting skillz, I meant this one

[matgb]

See, I hadn't noticed you had multiple Davros. That's quite cool.

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

I have three Davroses (Davrii?) because he = teh sechs.

Mmmmm evil meglomaniac with electric fingernails... ;)

[kcontheroad.livejournal.com]

matgb was looking for the post where you discussed male circumcision. Do you recall when that was? Nothing on it showing in your tags, unless 'hot sexy manflesh' was the one, which I sincerely doubt.

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

Try religion?

I am teh suck at tagging.

[kcontheroad.livejournal.com]

Bingo. It was under religion.

119 comments.

http://snapesbabe.livejournal.com/428524.html#cutid1

[matgb]

See, I looked. Must've missed it or summat. Still, thanks.

119 comments? Ouch. Later methinks.

[innerbrat]

Oh gods, it hurts,

hurts

that WHO are actually advocating genital mutilation to fight a virus that's stopped much more effectively by a simple condom.

Note they don't mention studies that show circumcision increases the risk of infection in women.

[matgb]

Re the former, it's one of those precticalities things; everyone sane would rather they could promote condoms, but the combined weight of church objections, longstanding cultural practices, dislike of the damn things and, most importantly, availability and cost, means that this might actually do something to hel stop the spread, trying to promote condom use is still happening, but nowhere near as succesfully as we'd all like.

Re the second. Ouch, news to me but. Unprotected sex with someone known to be infected, never a good plan; increasing transmission is bad, but the risks are too great anyway, if you're known to be infected, which these guys were. Condoms really should be used if you know you've got it.

The circ thing is aimed more at people that don't know, especially men not already infected.

Regardless, it's a horrible situation, and it's not a decision making structure I'd like to be in, the WHO have a horrible job on this issue, not sure I could make the 'right' choice at all.

[innerbrat]

Well yes, sex with someone infected is stupid, and so is sex with someone with a bleeding knob (some of these men were having sex before the wound healed.) But people do that anyway.

Regardless, and back to the first, I can't advocate or support removal of a healthy part of a human body unless it poses a direct health threat, and certainly not because it

might

reduce a

risk

.

[matgb]

See, I was done when I was a kid, not even sure my parents consented, I had an operation and there it was, was about 6 at the time. It is a significant risk reduction, and while I'd prefer behavioural changes, etc that'sa lot harder to pull off.

Like I said, not my decision, and I'm very glad it's not, because I haven't a clue if it's a good one.

[innerbrat]

Doing it without consent squiks me even harder.

There are many many conflicting studies from camps with either agenda - the one side thinking unneccessary removal of a bodypart is mutilation, and the other trying to justify a religious and cultural practice. Some say it destroys sensation, others that it reduces risk, etc etc.

And half the time, men understandably take the issue much more personally than anything else I've seen debated, it seems mostly because they don't want to decide whether or not it's a bad or good thing, which I'm sure has psychological issues about an issue you have to take personally, because if you have a cock, then you either have a foreskin or not, and no one wants to admit they're wrong.

That was a gross oversimplification, that last point.

Very few people have a clue if it's a good decision. To me, one would need a very definite very solid very

good

reason to start taking a knife to my genitals or that or my son, and a

reduced

risk of infection is not one of them.

In short, if you asked me whether I'd like to use a condom or have a piece of my body sliced off, no matter how unimportant that piece was, I'd go for the condom every time.