Posted by Kayla in Medical | 3 Comments
Other risks with circumcision
I was reading an article that there is a higher risk of gonorrhea and inflammation of the urethra (the tube that carries the urine from the bladder outside) in uncircumcised men. It has also been reported that other sexually-transmitted diseases (such as chancroid, syphilis, human papillomavirus, and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection) are more frequent in uncircumcised men. As mentioned above, most recently three large studies performed in Africa documented that circumcision was protective with respect to the acquisition of HIV infection as compared to those uncircumcised subjects.
What might this connection between circumcision and sexually-transmitted diseases mean?
Circumcision prevents the growth under the foreskin of the agents that cause sexually-transmitted diseases. Removal of the foreskin may provide some measure of protection from these diseases to males and their mates.
What is the correlation between sexually-transmitted diseases and cancer of the cervix?
There is a strong connection between sexually-transmitted diseases and cancer of the cervix. Human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 (as well as other less common HPV types) are causes of precancerous changes in the cervix and cervical cancer.
The strongest predisposing factors in cervical cancer are a history of intercourse at an early age and multiple sexual partners. An HPV vaccine is now available and recommended for all teenaged girls, and when given before the first sexual encounter, it has been shown to be protective against the most common HPV types associated with malignancy. The vaccine presumably prevents cervical cancer associated with these specific infections but is unable to prevent cancers arising from infections with less common HPV types not contained in the vaccine. Therefore, routine screening for precancerous changes in the cervix is still recommended.
What might this relationship between lack of circumcision and cervical cancer mean?
Circumcision may partially protect the mate from cancer of the cervix by removing the foreskin which harbors sexually-transmitted viruses (HPVs) that promote this common form of female cancer.
Circumcision: Medical Pros and Cons At A Glance Inability to retract the foreskin fully at birth is not a medical reason for a circumcision.Circumcision prevents phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin at an age when it should normally be retractable), paraphimosis (the painful inability to return the foreskin to its original location), and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).Circumcision increases the chance of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis). Circumcision may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infections Circumcision may result in a lower incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases and may reduce HIV transmission.Circumcision may lower the risk for cancer of the cervix in sexual partners.Circumcision may decrease the risk for cancer of the penis.There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- circumcision hiv - circumcision hiv... Good post. I am looking into these issues on my blog....
Circumcision isn’t necessary. Also, it has never been proven to reduce STDs.
The feminine foreskin, known as the labias and clitoral hood, have the same cellular structure and the same problems, minus getting caught in the zipper, as the masculine prepuce. Excision of the feminine prepuce would double the chances of not getting HIV and the likes for humans. If we deaden the nerves in the feminine and masculine prepuce at the nerve junction known as the frenulum then, specialized structures whose functions are to enhance sexual desire, then we can save the world, or we can just get educated instead. Infants can’t object so you should target the innocent. If people don’t like it when they grow up, they can just commit murder/suicide. That will lower the chances of getting an STD even more, if you’re dead.
The calloused glans of a circumcised man causes more vaginal erosion where microbes can enter.
None of these claims are useful without figures. A small reduction of the risk of some disease is of no value if the disease is very rare. The figure usually used is the Number Needed to Treat (NNT), the smaller the better (and this should be contrasted with the NNH, the Number Needed to Harm). NNTs are usually in single figures to be considered worthwhile. The NNT of circumcision for a complaint like cervical cancer is over 100 (since fewer than one woman in 100 gets cervical cancer and circumcision is far from 100% effective). The same is true for other complaints.