somethndif
Posts: 136
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
There is no evidence that circumcision reduces STDs, the study you mentioned was HIV specific. You are being economical with the truth. However, according to British Medical Association and other European medical bodies, circumcision does increase infections and cause erectile and urinary problems not associated with none circumcized males.
Actually there were three studies in Africa and in each of them circumcised men had statistically significant reduced rates of HIV infection.
And, yes, there is evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of other STD's, as well as HIV/AIDS. Again from the CDC fact sheet:
"Male Circumcision and Other Health Conditions
Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease and chlamydia, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men [1]. The latter two conditions are related to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Transmission of this virus is also associated with lack of male circumcision. A recent meta-analysis included 26 studies that assessed the association between male circumcision and risk for genital ulcer disease. The analysis concluded that there was a significantly lower risk for syphilis and chancroid among circumcised men, whereas the reduced risk of herpes simplex virus type 2 infection had a borderline statistical significance [4]."
As for complications from circumcision, the CDC fact sheet states:
"Risks Associated with Male Circumcision
Reported complication rates depend on the type of study (e.g., chart review vs. prospective study), setting (medical vs. nonmedical facility), person operating (traditional vs. medical practitioner), patient age (infant vs. adult), and surgical technique or instrument used. In large studies of infant circumcision in the United States, reported inpatient complication rates range from 0.2% to 2.0% [1, 14, 15]. The most common complications in the United States are minor bleeding and local infection. In the recently completed African trials of adult circumcision, the rates of adverse events possibly, probably, or definitely attributable to circumcision ranged from 2% to 8%. The most commonly reported complications were pain or mild bleeding. There were no reported deaths or long-term sequelae documented [9, 10, 11, 16]. A recent case-control study of two outbreaks of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in otherwise healthy male infants at one hospital identified circumcision as a potential risk factor. However, in no case did MRSA infections involve the circumcision site, anesthesia injection site, or the penis, and MRSA was not found on any of the circumcision equipment or anesthesia vials tested [17]."
So, circumcision has few adverse effects and no "long-term sequelae."
If you have a link or citation to something from the BMA or some other medical association showing problems with circumcision, I would like to see it. Until then, I'll trust the CDC's review of the available medical literature.
Dan
|
RE: Circumcision - 
Profile
If circumcision does assist with infection rates, why do the most reliable AIDs research data not indicate dramatic falls of HIV infection rates in the US - seeing as the majority of males are already circumcised in the states? Other than a sharp dip in the early 90's when AIDS was at the top of the political agenda and adverts and information was at it's peak, from 2000, is has been on a slight increase and even plateaued? Why isn't it dropping significantly? 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread