Gay
health
organizations
and
others
are
condemning
a
New
York
strategy
that
encourages
circumcision
for
men
who
are
at
high
risk
of
contracting
HIV.
The
strategy,
which
asks
city
hospitals
to
perform
the
procedure
for
free
on
uninsured
men,
emerged
this
month
after
three
studies
in
Africa
showed
that
circumcision
reduced
HIV
transmission
among
heterosexual
partners.
But
the
strategy
has
drawn
harsh
criticism
from
several
experts.
Gay
Men’s
Health
Crisis
in
New
York,
the
National
Organization
of
Circumcision
Information
Resource
Centers
in
suburban
San
Francisco
and
others
said
circumcision
is
unproven
to
help
protect
gay
men
from
HIV.
“The
effect
of
circumcision
on
HIV
transmission
for
gay
men
and
other
men
who
have
sex
with
men
is
unknown,”
the
Gay
Men’s
Health
Crisis
said
in
a
statement.
“The
effect
of
circumcision
for
anal
intercourse
is
unknown.”
Marilyn
Milos,
executive
director
of
the
National
Organization
of
Circumcision
Information
Resource
Centers,
agreed.
“To
think
that
circumcision
is
going
to
prevent
AIDS
when
it
didn’t
prevent
other
STDs
is
insane,”
she
said.
“There
are
better,
less
risky
and
more
cost-effective
solutions
to
the
problem.”
The
New
York
City
Department
of
Health
and
Mental
Hygiene
is
asking
gay
rights
groups
and
other
organizations
to
discuss
circumcision
with
their
members.
It
also
has
approached
the
agency
that
runs
city
hospitals
and
health
clinics
about
the
possibility
of
offering
the
procedure
for
free
to
uninsured
men.
Thomas
Frieden,
the
city’s
health
commissioner,
said
the
efforts
are
not
part
of
any
formal
campaign.
In
a
letter
to
community
organizations,
he
said
the
steps
were
taken
merely
to
help
increase
the
knowledge
and
availability
of
circumcision
among
New
York
men
who
are
at
risk
of
contracting
HIV.
“The
need
for
new
effective
prevention
methods
is
urgent,”
he
wrote.
An
estimated
100,000
people
are
living
with
HIV
or
AIDS
in
New
York,
according
to
the
city’s
health
department.
‘Bad
science’
But
critics
said
the
strategy
would
do
little
to
help
gay
New
Yorkers.
Ryan
McAllister,
30,
a
biophysics
research
fellow
at
Georgetown
University
in
Washington,
said
findings
from
the
three
studies
are
inapplicable
to
gay
men.
He
also
noted
the
studies
used
questionable
methods.
“As
far
as
I
can
tell,
it’s
pretty
bad
science,”
said
McAllister,
who
is
gay.
He
said
the
studies,
which
followed
groups
of
circumcised
and
uncircumcised
men
for
two
years
to
track
emergence
of
HIV
infections,
were
poorly
done.
McAllister
said
researchers
in
Africa
started
tracking
infections
for
both
groups
immediately
after
circumcision,
even
though
most
men
cannot
resume
sexual
activity
for
about
six
months
following
the
operation.
He
also
said
circumcised
men
were
advised
to
use
condoms
while
uncircumcised
men
were
not,
and
men
in
neither
group
were
asked
whether
they
had
engaged
in
anal
intercourse.
Frieden
acknowledged
in
his
letter
that
the
studies
offer
only
“some
evidence”
and
“no
proof”
that
circumcision
could
protect
men
who
have
sex
with
men.
But
critics
said
the
evidence
remains
so
weak
that
it
gives
no
reason
to
circumcise
gay
men.
“These
studies
are
bogus
and
I
am
still
against
circumcision,”
said
John-Paul
Morrison,
43,
a
gay
man
who
lives
in
Costa
Rica
and
is
restoring
his
foreskin.
“There
are
a
…
lot
of
men
in
the
U.S.
that
are
HIV-positive
who
are
circumcised,
so
it
apparently
didn’t
help
them.”
Milos
said
the
National
Organization
of
Circumcision
Information
Resource
Centers
promotes
condoms
and
safe
practices
—
not
circumcision
—
to
curtail
HIV
transmission.
“When
people
are
afraid
of
a
disease,
they’ll
look
for
anything
to
bring
it
to
an
end,”
she
said.
“But
it
won’t
work.”
Milos
said
circumcision,
which
began
in
the
U.S.
in
the
mid
19th
century
to
curb
masturbation,
has
fallen
out
of
favor
with
pediatrics.
She
said
approximately
85
to
95
percent
of
infant
boys
were
circumcised
30
years
ago.
Today,
an
estimated
55
percent
of
newborn
boys
undergo
the
procedure.
