Ridiculous Circumcision Euphemism.
Dr. Limakatso Lebina’s Ridiculous
Circumcision Euphemism.
Anyone familiar with the way voluntary, adult male circumcision is being promoted as a way to reduce the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission in high-risk populations already knows how it’s promoted. The brochure excludes context-specific qualifiers.
That mouthful in the first sentence is always shortened to “circumcision reduces the risk of HIV”, even though that broad statement isn’t supported by the studies.
In addition, voluntary, adult male circumcision loses words over time.
Adult was the first word to go. Voluntary is still used, but that word doesn’t mean what it’s used to represent. Consent must only come from the patient when the circumcision is non-therapeutic.
Absent that consent, the surgery shouldn’t be imposed on a healthy minor.
In a discrediting move, no one adheres to that.
It took six days from the 2006 release of the major HIV study on voluntary, adult circumcision in Africa for the U.N. to propose targeting infants first among all males in HIV-ravaged parts of Africa. Perpetuating circumcision via physical indoctrination is the new standard.
Voluntary disappeared a long time ago as anything more than a marketing word.
I do not wish to suggest I think this is a conspiracy. Public health officials believe they are acting nobly. A well-meaning focus on one’s own preferences explains this at least as well.
We must do something to reduce HIV. Circumcision is something. Therefore, we should circumcise.
That’s bad logic, and relies too heavily on the nonsensical idea that someone happy with being circumcised proves everyone will be happy being circumcised.
It treats the individual as a tool to achieve some public goal. That’s mistaken but it seems rooted in good intentions.
Now, knowing all of this, I’m difficult to surprise with how public health officials promote circumcision. I expect dumb, offensive strategies.
Rather than “voluntary” male circumcision, we have a “love cut”.
This is no different than asking opponents “Why do you want people to get HIV?” as if one can’t be opposed to both non-voluntary forced circumcision and the transmission of HIV.
Here, Dr. Lebina implies that an intact man who won’t have himself circumcised doesn’t love his partner as much as someone who would have himself circumcised.
It’s preposterous. It also encourages parents to circumcise their sons because they love them.
That’s twisted. Circumcision is not a gift.
Public policy needs to return to voluntary, adult male circumcision and mean it.
Euphemisms like this, however well-intentioned, are Orwellian distortions that hide the ethical issues from those promoting and from those deciding on circumcision.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
..
