Abstract

This article deals with the specific claim that prophylactic male infant circumcision should be employed to prevent HIV transmission in countries in which the prevalence of HIV is relatively low. In a recent editorial, Australian researchers sought to promote the procedure as a ‘surgical vaccine’ against HIV in their country. This raises the question whether it would be reasonable for the UK to adopt a policy of mass infant male circumcision in order to protect individuals from heterosexually acquired infection with HIV. A review of the relevant data and associated commentary indicates that the actual benefits of real-world circumcision policies to prevent HIV transmission are disputed and that circumcision, at best, provides partial protection. In addition, it is uncertain whether infant circumcision confers the same benefits that the adult procedure is proposed to provide. Reasons for performing circumcisions on infants include that the procedure is easier, less complicated and cheaper. However, it is not risk free. Despite arguments to the contrary, this article contends that it is morally problematic to operate on thousands of male infants each year for little benefit to children qua children. It is also argued that the use of the term ‘surgical vaccine’ to describe the procedure is both inaccurate and misleading