Health in the News

1. Male circumcision is debated. The public health justification for it is clear - it's a low cost method of STD prevention, relative to many alternatives. Circumcision apparently reduces HIV transmission by as much as 50%. The total costs of the procedure, even including the presently discounted value of lost sexual pleasure (if such costs even exist, as it is only speculated at this point as far as I can tell), is far below the benefits. This should be encouraged particularly in developing parts of Africa and Asia, as well as parts of Europe, where HIV has hit hard.

2. High dosage chemo does not have benefits, based on a recent study involving over 6200 and 15 trials.

3. A postdoctoral fellow at the University of Chicago returns to Sierra Leone to undergo female circumcision with her ethnic tribe and writes about Westerner's misunderstanding of the practice. She claims they exaggerate the practice's effect on female sexual pleasure. I'd love to learn more about this. My understanding is that the female clitoris is a crucial component in the female orgasm, so I can't imagine how it is not on average reducing female sexual pleasure in the population. Whether it is oppressive, though, is an entirely different matter.