Researchers from South Africa and France have uncovered a significant health benefit for the age-old custom of male circumcision. Their research showed that men who had been circumcised had a 70% less chance of contracting HIV - the precursor to AIDS.
This was a significant result as the best case scenario for an AIDS' vaccine was a 30% reduction.
The closely managed clinical study that started in 2002 followed 3,000 men from Orange Farm Township in South Africa - half the group was circumcised and half the group was not. In the first year of the study, they found that for every ten men who contracted HIV in the uncircumcised group, there were only three in the circumcised group.
The findings were so significant that the trial was stopped early and the uncircumcised men were told to get circumcised.
Based on the results of this study, it's estimated that circumcision could save the lives of 3 million people in sub-Saharan Africa over the next 20 years.
This major clinical study was undertaken because over 36 earlier studies -- using less rigorous testing standards -- had noticed significant reductions in HIV cases due to circumcision of men. According to an analysis of these earlier studies by the US Agency of International Development circumcised men were half as like to get AIDS.
Since 1989, medical personnel had noticed that rates of HIV infection in West Africa, which practiced mail circumcision, was running at about 5% compared to 30% for other nations such as Zimbabwe and Botswana where circumcision is not practiced.
Looking at it from a medical perspective, studies have shown that the foreskin -- which is cut off in circumcision -- is rich in white blood cells which are the primary point of attack for the HIV virus.
Over the last few years, there has been growing resistance to circumcision and groups have lobbied politicians to have the practice stopped. Some are even suggesting jail time for anyone who circumcises a boy under the age of 14 while others are trying to intimidate doctors by threatening lawsuits against anyone who does it.
Source: The case for Circumcision, National Post, August 31, 2006 / Male circumcision cuts AIDS risk, July 5, 2005, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ / Circumcision may offer Aids hope, July 6, 2005 www.sfgate.com
Editor's Note: Many of the Old Testament laws were health related. I believe God instituted the laws for that reason and though the Israelites did not understand this, their obedience protected them. Consequently, I am not surprised by the health benefits of circumcision which God initiated as the sign of the covenant.
There have been numerous studies that show the health benefits of circumcision aside from even HIV. There is evidence it reduces the risk of contracting herpes, gonorrhea and candidiasis. For the male, it appears to reduce penile cancer and urinary tract infection and even cervical cancer for the female partner. Though, the injuction for moral purity and faithfulness was the highest form of protection, circumcision did offer an additionnal level of protection to the innocent spouse, for example, when the other failed.
Many look upon Jewish laws as a collection of dietary restriction. This is a bit of a misnomer. The restrictions were much more severe than that, they were forbidden from even touching things considered unclean (Lev 11:24-32). Eating was simply a spin off of a much broader prohibition.
Jews understood when they became unclean, that their uncleanness could be transmitted to other people through simple touch.
The pig has become a major focus because the Jews were allowed to eat all animals with a cleft foot except the pig. But it was no different than any other unclean animal. A couple of years ago, I talked to someone who owns a large pig farm and he told me of the incredible lengths they go through to limit the contact between humans and pigs. In their case, they have a special change room where workers are required to change their clothes before going into the pig barn and after leaving. On some pig farms, in addition to changing their clothes, people are required to shower before entering and leaving the barns. The reason is that disease can easily be transmitted between pigs and humans.
How is this any different from the Old Testament law that required ritual washing of the person and clothes if they came in contact with unclean animals such as pigs? Were the reasons any different?
In Leviticus 11, we have an interesting discussion on uncleanness as it relates to grain. The law stated if grain came in contact with something unclean (note rats were considered unclean), it could be cleansed by washing with water, but the water became unclean (i.e. was not suitable for drinking.) However, if rats got into grain and it was used for planting (v 37), it was clean.
Jews also considered dead people as unclean (Numbers 19:11-22). Anyone who came in contact with a person was considered unclean and could pass on their uncleanness to others. These statutes had the effect of limiting the number of people who touched the dead.
Since people were needed for burial, provisions were made for cleansing, including the usual rituals of bathing and washing of clothes. But there was one additional kicker - they were considered unclean for a full seven days. This effectively functioned as a quarantine. As well, if a person died at night in a tent where other people were sleeping, the whole family was considered unclean for seven days.
These prohibitions were effective ways of limiting the spread of disease among the Israelites.
|
