The Robert Bailey Project

Who is Robert Bailey?

Robert Bailey is a professor at a major American university. He has become one of the primary modern day advocates for male circumcision, and has worked closely with Daniel Halperin. If anyone doubts this man intends to make male circumcision his legacy, all one has to do is examine his research interests, which include, "male circumcision as a strategy for HIV/STD prevention." He has written numerous articles advocating wholesale circumcision campaigns. He has never addressed the human rights questions and implications associated with his advocacy. It is telling that he is not a medical doctor or even a medical epidemiologist, but rather holds degrees in Anthrology and "behaviorial epidemiology." He has recently been described as "frustrated and impatient" with the alleged slowness to act on his research.

Biographical Webpage

Why should you contact him?

Bailey's position gives him a great deal of clout and influence. You should contact him directly and his department head, if you are so moved, to express your opinions on the promotion of male circumcision in a vaccuum of ethical considerations and indeed even any basic research on what ethical concerns could arise in a mass circumcision campaign.

Who to contact and how

Robert Bailey
Professor, Epidemiology
University of Illinois - Champagne-Urbana
E-mail: rcbailey@uic.edu
Address: 959 SPHPI, M/C 923
Phone: 312-355-0440

Leslie Thomas Stayner
Director, Epidemiology & Biostatistics
Professor, Epidemiology
University of Illinois - Champagne-Urbana
E-mail: lstayner@uic.edu
Address: 971 SPHPI, M/C 923
Phone: 312-455-3692

 

Comments

[suasage-roll]

Oh this is interesting. Don't like the message then shoot the messenger. Nice touch.

[IntactwhitemaleUSA]

Yes, it's high time to take a look at these mens' motivations and credentials. DO they have any medical credentials? What are their research backgrounds, where does their funding come from and how much do they stand to lose if they're wrong? Are they motivated by religion, or blinded by lack thereof? Halperin is Jewish I believe, and could be desensitized to the harm done by circ. Others may be compairing apples to oranges in a cultuaral/religious vacuum, compairing for example Muslims with a strong social control on casual sex to non-Muslim groups without such checks. Do they even understand the statistical analysis that "seems" to make their case? How do they blithley ignore the fact that all musocal tissues, foreskin included, are aspects of the human body's immune system, its frontline defence?
Oh, and one more thing, if their experiment on the sexual anatomy of brown-skinned people turns out to be worthless, or as we seem to be already seeing turns out be be a causitive factor via the "I'm cut therefore I'm immune to HIV" mindset or simply by diverting dollars from education and condoms to name a few, are they ready to stand before the Hague? HIV is not a game, and when circ promoters hand us their "silver bullet" (never IMPLICITY stated, but consider Bailey's recent comments to the press in the last week alone!) we have EVERY RIGHT TO ASK WHATEVER WE WANT about their motivations, beliefs, and competency. This is not a case of shooting the messenger, it's a situation where we question the motives of people selling us something that we don't want, but "absolutely must have," something that is "supported by the evidence," but slyly never billed as supported by THEIR evidence and contradicted by others' research. Excellent show sir. These men are aiming knives at genitals, can't they stand to be needled about their own pasts and prejudices?

[IntactwhitemaleUSA]

Sorry, I of couse meant never EXPLICITY stated ;)

[IntactwhitemaleUSA]

Ugg EXPLICITLY

[David]

Lol ... no worries. Well said, nonetheless.

[Alastair Jenkins]

"The Projects" pages on specific individuals will certainly be useful, though we should be careful to use moderate language when commenting. Certainly it will probably be counterproductive to call for these people to be formally investigated for unethical research without our having extremely good evidence (e.g. as the "climate change denier" Bjørn Lomborg was in Denmark). What is important is to publicize the errors and inconsistencies in their research papers, conference presentations, press releases, and so on.

I suggest also that we try to understand why genital mutilation is supported by scientists from predominantly non-circumcising countries, such as Belgium (de Cock), France (Auvert), Canada (Hankins), the U.K., Australia, and so on.

[IntactwhitemaleUSA]

I certainly agree; I apologize for my bombast. As my post name suggests, this is a highly charged subject for myself and others like me, those who escaped the knife by luck or in my case parental forethought. Particularly galling is Bailey's quote that women should play a major role in circumcision promotion by refusing to have intercourse with men who are intact. Never mind the cultural dynamics that might make these womens' refusal quite difficult, but this is something like telling African men to make sure that their partners, daughters, daughters-in-law are practicing modesty by making sure they are are circumcised as well. Those who have kept an eye on this topic know that the most disingenious line of thought proposed by this group is not their rabid aclaim for circ, but that it will of course only be aplied to adult men who are fully informed and consenting. Nonsense. Involutary circumcision has frequenly been used to intimidate and humiliate non-Muslim men in predominantly Muslim countries, just to show one direction this policy could easily lead to. UNAIDS at first said this new circumcision policy should only be applied to 6 sub-saharan countries, and that it should only be safe, voluntary etc. But the proponents aren't satisfied with that; almost immedaeatly they've launched into neo-natal circ as they great new AIDS prevention method(cure? it's hard to keep up with the hyperbole). I suppose when they admit that they might, just possibly, maybe maybe maybe might be wrong about universal circumcision come hell or high water, I'll feel a little better about their intent and reasoning, but I'm waiting for that day.

[J]

David is not sooting the messenger, David is calling the messenger to task.
There are significant ethical concerns that the promoters of circumcision
are not even attempting to address in their zeal to impose this on males.
There are those who say that all these ethical problems are justifiable since the problem in Africa is so severe. If that is the case, NOTE: I am not actually promoting this, perhaps we should reexamine the Stallings study: http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138 as Dr. Jonny Myers said in his submission to the South African Medical Journal “A Tanzanian study had found that female circumcision reduced HIV transmission. Biologically, the explanation for this was probably the same as for male circumcision. If female circumcision was medicalised in a similar way to male circumcision, it could be made safer and less damaging.” Full story here: http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2115519,00.html The odds ratio in the conclusion showed a very significant correlation between female circumcision and less HIV prevalence; however, rather then trumpeting a break through in HIV prevention the authors consider it a 'conundrum'. If our backs are against the wall in Africa and we have a study like this that show a strong benefit are we not ethically obligated to investigate it and possibly offer it? Apparently not when its females. As Dr. Myers stated: "The downplaying of these facts in the media is a powerful reflection of Western cultural attitudes. We have already decided that female circumcision is an appalling human rights violation and so do not even flirt with the idea of using it as an HIV prevention tool.” ... "The difference with male circumcision is that it is still tolerated in Western and other parts of the world, rendering it politically acceptable."

Although this was initially pedaled as an option for African adults I suspect that the promoters such as Bailey want nothing less than to go after helpless babies. It makes sense; the only way you might achieve high percentages are by going after the most vulnerable. Scaring parents into making an uninformed decision. And it will be uniformed if their idea of 'informed' is anything like the US model, they aren't going to get squat and unlike the US there is likely no opportunity or capability to perform independent research and verification. They aren't going to hear about the harm that will be caused by a procedure which includes removal of tissue which serves purpose at every state of life including protective, sensory, and sexual. Even American babies have been serious maimed or killed by the procedure and this actually happens more often then is generally realized. This will likely be even worse in Africa where the medical system is all ready severely taxed.

What kind of serious complication rate can we expect from such an effort? Or rather what level of complications are we willing to accept? Will they have the capacity to treat men and boys who have one of these devices attached wrong: http://www.circumstitions.com/News25.html#death or suffer permanent damage: http://www.circumstitions.com/News26.html#mattoon or suffer respiratory or cardiac arrest: http://www.circumstitions.com/News24.html#died ? Who will deal with these complication which are sure to occur at higher rates in such a place? What about post op infection which is more likely to occur in these decrepit and unsanitary areas? What about the long term consequences such as meatal stenosis? Are there enough pediatric urologist to help those boys who will develop it? How are they going to pay for such a problem within the already strained health care system?

The issue that Dave is demanding answer on are the ethics particularly surrounding the notion of infant male circumcision as an HIV control measure even in a place like Africa. And lets not kid our selfs these people want to impose this on infants they have each 'slipped' on more than one occasion tipping their hand and have been quoted suggesting routine infant circumcision as an HIV control measure all the while playing the press like a tune. The ethics of the situation are simply undeniable I quote directly Dr. Somerville, “The most recent claim of a medical benefit from circumcision is a reduction in the risk of contracting HIV infection or other sexually transmitted diseases. The research on which this claim is based is being challenged, but even if it is correct, it would not justify circumcising infant boys. Even assuming that circumcision gave men additional protection from becoming infected with HIV, baby boys do not immediately need such protection and can choose for themselves, at a later stage, if they want it.”

We don't even know why circumcision, in Africa, was shown to be so effective when there has been no evidence of significant correlation in the west, it seems nobody really cares. Though it has been shown that the formally maligned langerhans cells, found in mucosa lining such as the foreskin, actually protect against HIV. http://obgyn.health.ivillage.com/newsstories/scientistsdiscovernaturalbarrierhiv.cfm It is entirely possible that the African experience differs based on any number of circumstance including, but not limited to, poverty, hunger, and disease which could collectively serve to weaken the bodies natural protection. Curiously, these STDs and HIV occur at much higher rates here in the US then any other modern western country while at the same time the US also has the highest rate of circumcision. Could it be that better living standards allow natural mechanisms to function more effectively? Or could it be better education, not just on sex, but also in general? Could it be better access to sanitation and condoms? I am betting on all three and perhaps others.

There are also non medical ethical problem that must be faced and have not even come close to being addressed. Even if the protection offered was true there is a real danger that this message won't get properly translated or understood to be what it really means. That is EVEN if you go this route you STILL must use condoms and practice SAFE sex. That is the message that will go in one ear and out the other. Men getting circumcised will eventually ignore it and babies will never hear it. How do I know? Just look at what is going on now, Africans are suffering because of their living conditions, economic conditions, educational conditions, promiscuity, and unsafe behavior. A program like this also costs money which has to come from somewhere; if a circumcision cost $50 and a condom cost $0.03 each circumcision essentially costs more than 1600 condoms.

Bailey's apparently issues with the slow roll out only serve to further demonstrate his recklessness and lack of ethical considerations. They say the results may not show up for years after implementation but a boat load of condoms and stiff relentless education (which they will STILL need by the way) provides a far faster and larger return on investment. Yet here we stand guns at the ready to go blazing in there and offer 'hope' through surgery like an elixir or snake oil sales man of days past. By the time anyone realizes they've been had it will be too late. I am done.

For those intrepid readers who are interested, Dr. Margaret Somerville, a founding director of the Centre for Medicine,
Ethics, and Law at McGill University in Montreal Canada, discussed the ethics of infant male circumcision in her book “The Ethical Canary” text excerpt here: http://www.intact.ca/canary.htm Correspondents between Dr. Somerville and CPA Doctors discussion her classification of RIC as criminal assault: http://www.courtchallenge.com/letters/somer1.html

[IntactwhitemaleUSA]

Couldn't a CAT or PET scan deliver the image to the news media about the difference in sensitivity (comparison of stimulation/orgasm) between intact/cut that we're looking for?

[suasage-roll]

Of course this whole 'project' is nothing but an attempt at a witch hunt. If Bailey was wrong with the science then surely it would easier to just debunk what he has to say? The problem is that circumcision is in fact protective to the tune of 60% against female to male HIV infection. Why is that so hard to accept?

[David]

To "suasage-roll" :

Nobody in this discussion including myself has a problem with your circumcision. This discussion isn't about you. You need to understand that.

It is about HIV and prevention. If we were talking forced testing and quarantine, the howling objections would be deafening. If we were talking female circumcision (viz Stallings), you would get angry scoffing. But mention the unwisdom of circumcision in HIV prevention and management and the angry fetishists, like you suasage-roll, come tumbling out of the closet to vent their vitriol against the foreskin.

I'm sorry I had to edit your comment. I would ask you to keep your attacks on topic at the very least. Or refrain from commenting. If you can behave, then by all means contribute to the discussion.

- Ed.