AIDS and Circumcision

Today in my economics class, we were discussing the AIDS epidemic and policies put in place by various sub-Saharan countries to combat the spread of HIV. One of the possible methods involved circumcision, as apparently disease transmission is significantly lowered for circumcised individuals. I will skip discussion on all the possible confounding factors for my own sanity.

After our professor mentioned this observation on circumcision, a girl on the class put up her hand and proceeded to ask a question that went along these lines:"What policies have governments put into place to ensure that people are being circumcised?" Another girl asked a similar question after the first was answered:"Has there been any thought given to requiring circumcision at birth?" (To be clear, I am referring to male circumcision here.)

Now, chances are, if you are a male like me, you might appreciate the delicateness of a male being forced by government policy to be circumcised to some degree more than those two females in my economics class. I was rather upset by the attitude displayed toward what is in more crude terms a traditional mutilation of male genitalia. Though that class was the last for the semester, I left rather unsatisfied simply as a result of those comments being made.

Afterwards, I realized that my reaction represented a gross reversal from my normal mindset towards government action and human rights. I have always been on the side of government leadership which essentially sacrifices rights which I have felt more "marginal" in order to preserve and perhaps even better those rights which are more vital. For example, I am in agreement with concepts such as mandatory vaccination and large-scale quarantines. I generally am supportive of government actions that promote population health, strong foreign policy, economic growth, and technological advancement. The poor should be helped in order to reduce drain on the economy. Gay marriage should not be legalized in order to protect growth and maintenance of population size. Stem cell research should be allowed in order to expedite development of life-saving medicines which in turn protect the vitality of the working force. At times, my ideals have agreed with eugenics, widespread use of the death penalty, totalitarian states, and brainwashing campaigns. Public opinion in my mind is the enemy of progress.

Perhaps, then, my uncharacteristic response to government action for circumcision is revealing of my lack of willingness to follow through with my own ideals. Objectively, universal circumcision would almost definitely have a positive effect with regard to preventing HIV transmission (assuming of course, that circumcision does actually decrease transmission rate). Yet, I squirm when considering circumcision due to my being a male. Perhaps I would also be hesitant with regard to the death penalty if my main source of income or my lifestyle revolved around illegal activities. Perhaps I would be unhappy with bans on gay marriage if I were gay. Perhaps I would be displease with mandatory vaccinations if I had lost a sibling or child from an unfortunate vaccination.

In this light, then, what is correct? Or maybe better worded, what is better, to expect a populace to be willing to sacrifice personal beliefs and desires for decisive policy and strong measures, or to bicker confusedly over issues where solutions are barred only by a few who object for objectively inconsequential reasons? Maybe it is unreasonable to expect people to give up a their sense of entitlement. Our American society obsessed with personal rights and individual space surely will not allow many of the extreme measures that I support to be enacted. But this attitude might be justified with considering how affluent we are. When our most difficult daily choices involve choosing what to wear or eat or whether or not to exercise, naturally the average person balks when asked to do anything against his or her will.

Though I will continue to stand by most of my ideals (a rather paradoxical statement given what I previously wrote about), a few perhaps will enter moderation as I become more familiar with and gain better understanding of the limitations of our society and of people in general. Until then, I am still against vegetarians, against gay marriage, for abortion and cloning, for nuclear power, against environmentalism, and essentially in support of policies which sacrifice select human rights in favor of system stability and recovery.