An article in the 20 September issue of the Journal that suggested circumcision of infant boys could be considered a "surgical vaccine" against future sexually transmitted HIV has attracted strong criticism from many of our readers (MJA 2011; 194: 97-101)
To the Editor: In a recent editorial, Cooper and colleagues recommend increasing infant circumcision to combat increasing rates of heterosexual transmission of HIV infection, and contend that the major obstacle to increasing male circumcision in Australia is a Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) policy.1
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
We thank John Allegrante, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University; Rouma Bankolé, University Hospital Cancer Research Center, Abidjan, Ivory Coast; Michel Garenne, Pasteur Institute, Paris; David Jones, University of Vermont; Julius Kyambi, University of Nairobi; Maria Isabel Loureiro, National School of Public Health, Lisbon; Donald Morisky, UCLA School of Public Health; Kyle Pruett, Yale School of Medicine; Timothy Quinlan, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa; Daniel Sidler, Tygerberg Children’s Hospital, South Africa; Lukong Suiye, Usmanu Danfodiyo University Teaching Hospital, Sokoto, Nigeria; and Lauraine Vivian, Groote Schuur Hospital, University of Cape Town — a few of the many professionals who have questioned the value of non-therapeutic male circumcision — for their encouragement and support.