Believe it or not, there happen to be days when Hensley is right:
@slate writes disgusting, biased article on male genital mutilation http://t.co/EjnFBq1Efp
— Melody Hensley (@MelodyHensley) September 19, 2013
Slate is really good at cranking out the clickbait journalism (everyone seems to be following Huffington Post around).
This case is particularly egregious as far as it claims to have "science" on its side.
As it happens so often with journos reading studies, the article seems eager to do the following things:
This case is particularly egregious as far as it claims to have "science" on its side.
As it happens so often with journos reading studies, the article seems eager to do the following things:
- Inject itself into an ongoing flamewar on the internet
- Attempt to drop some "data" into the conversation
- Convince the reader that this "science" is relevant to their choices the debate
The error in the article is essentially in the following nonsensical paragraph:
But that’s not circumcision’s only benefit. The procedure also protects men against a variety of other STDs, significantly reducing their odds of contracting herpes and syphilis. Moreover, circumcision is highly effective in preventing transmission of HPV in men, which in turn reduces their risk of penile cancer. And circumcised men are far less likely to contract genital warts or develop urinary tract infections. Fewer circumcisions mean more STDs and infections—and billions more in health care spending.
So much of this is absurd.
- No reputable medical organization in any developed nation is seriously advocating circumcision as a way to put a cap on sexually transmitted infections
- The United States circumcision rate is already the highest in the developed world. However it is also #1 in sexually transmitted diseases. (USA #1! USA #1!) How does that work?
- One can get herpes and other infections from circumcision.
- There is a HPV vaccine. Give it to people already!
One of the most insulting data points used is the reduced incidence of urinary tract infection. The idea that someone is going to cut parts off an infant so that it might avoid a round of antibiotics in later life is a ridiculous proposal.
Further, the "billions saved" in health care spending assumes that what we're already spending for routine infant circumcisions is already low without actually providing anything in terms of estimates.
Let's assume for a moment that every male in the nation was circumcised.
The American health care system does not remove 150+ million foreskins for free.
More on cost in a later post. For now, back to HIV.
What routine procedures would be more effective at ensuring that one's new baby boy does not contract HIV over his lifetime?
Some ideas:
- Slice the penis at the base instead of the tip
- Tattoo profanities on the boy's forehead
- Graft the removed foreskin onto the boy's chin
- Circumcise the pre-frontal cortex
Now, we haven't done the studies, but a little bit of logic informs us that the boy will have larger problems than potentially contracting HIV.
As an added bonus, the boy would be almost guaranteed a job at Slate.