WHO recommends male circumcision - Page 8 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Beer · #**106** (**permalink**) 06-19-2007

ok, well, no matter what medical word there is, it is STILL genital mutilation.
Get that in your brain before deforming your baby boys.

GENITAL

MUTILATION

erikvv · #**107** (**permalink**) 06-19-2007

penal terrorism

gruckiii · #**108** (**permalink**) 07-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

In unprotected sex, uncircumcised males are more likely to acquire/transmit the HIV virus because of increased abrasion.

Sorry I missed this the first time around, you meant in circumcised men there is more abrasion right?

In a Intact man, the foreskin acts as a gliding mechanism that reduces friction along the shaft. Also, at the end of a stroke when he withdraws, the foreskin is bunched up behind the coronal ridge, creating a cushion.

In a circumcised male, the shaft skin is taught and can not move, causing friction. Also the coronal ridge is completely exposed and acts like a barb scraping against the vaginal wall as it exist the vagina.

goober · #**109** (**permalink**) 07-22-2007

I would think that the circumcised unit is faster drying, and infections spread easier with moisture, so that would explain the higher infection rates.

gruckiii · #**110** (**permalink**) 07-22-2007

Problems with this study have been discussed elsewhere.
This is what I have read about this study.

It was not double blind. They clearly had an agenda by conducting the study in the first place.

The study was ended early. It was supposed to run for 24 months and they ended it at 15 or 16 months, depending on exact dates. (Sept. 2005 to Dec 2006) You could say they ended the study when they had the results they wanted.

It was a 16month study, in which the circumcised men were unable to have sex for 4-6 weeks, and possibly longer due to pain and the risk of opening the wound. (due to the removal of 1/3rd of the penises skin and up to 20k nerve endings).

Since Circumcision is not the norm in Africa, could they get funny looks from their partners for a few weeks, or feel less confident after the change to their anatomy? Maybe they enjoyed sex less after the change? I am sure the feelings would pass, but in a 16month period it could have an impact. It is pretty lame that this issue has that effect, but hey what can we say, intact guys in the US run into women who have never seen a foreskin all the time.

Seeing as they have claimed circumcision as a solution for all sorts of diseases, which we later found out to be false.. this one is up there with the rest of them.

iTaliAN_ICe · #**111** (**permalink**) 07-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by gruckiii

It was not double blind. They clearly had an agenda by conducting the study in the first place.

Ah yes, the hotly debated and controversial "pro-circumcision" agenda we see so often in Washington these days...

gruckiii · #**112** (**permalink**) 07-23-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by iTaliAN_ICe

Ah yes, the hotly debated and controversial "pro-circumcision" agenda we see so often in Washington these days...

Not in Washington, but more in the US medical community. These researchers careers are studying circumcision preventing STD's and have a history of doing this kind of "research". The US medical community is always doing research to try and justify circumcision. Studies that often don't stand up to peer-review or even make it into a respected medical journal (like this one), get parroted all over the media, becoming "common knowledge". I don't understand why this goes on, I just see it.

pramjockey · #**113** (**permalink**) 07-24-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by gruckiii

Sorry I missed this the first time around, you meant in circumcised men there is more abrasion right?

In a Intact man, the foreskin acts as a gliding mechanism that reduces friction along the shaft. Also, at the end of a stroke when he withdraws, the foreskin is bunched up behind the coronal ridge, creating a cushion.

In a circumcised male, the shaft skin is taught and can not move, causing friction. Also the coronal ridge is completely exposed and acts like a barb scraping against the vaginal wall as it exist the vagina.

No, that wasn't what I meant. From what I've read, the increase in abrasion occurs in uncircumcised men.

White Rabbit · #**114** (**permalink**) 07-24-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by gruckiii

Sorry I missed this the first time around, you meant in circumcised men there is more abrasion right?

In a Intact man, the foreskin acts as a gliding mechanism that reduces friction along the shaft. Also, at the end of a stroke when he withdraws, the foreskin is bunched up behind the coronal ridge, creating a cushion.

In a circumcised male, the shaft skin is taught and can not move, causing friction. Also the coronal ridge is completely exposed and acts like a barb scraping against the vaginal wall as it exist the vagina.

Your theory sounds great. Unfortunately it is countermanded by the evidence.

The evidence shows the contrary. Male circumcision apparently corelates with lower rates of every category of STD as well as HIV - regardless of where the data is collected (N.America, Europe, Africa or South East Asia). The corelations are statistically significant. The data on this has been around for some twenty years now.

Whether or not this is sufficient for any national government to mandate the practice is another story entirely and highly debateable. But there is no question about the data and the effect. Pretending it isn't so is not credible.

White Rabbit · #**115** (**permalink**) 07-24-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by gruckiii

Not in Washington, but more in the US medical community. These researchers careers are studying circumcision preventing STD's and have a history of doing this kind of "research". The US medical community is always doing research to try and justify circumcision. Studies that often don't stand up to peer-review or even make it into a respected medical journal (like this one), get parroted all over the media, becoming "common knowledge". I don't understand why this goes on, I just see it.

Really?

As one who has been following this issue for about twenty years, it has always appeared to me that it is the 'anti-circumcision' lobby that has been most agressive in North America over the last twenty years - attacking studies and pumping out their own.

Indeed, the data on circumcision reducing STD's and HIV infections has been known for over twenty years. It has not been widely published due to the lobby efforts of groups opposed to the practice. I'm quite surprised WHO was able to actually address the topic without their conferences being shut down by activist anti-circumcision fanatics.

Beer · #**116** (**permalink**) 07-25-2007

ive never seen nor heard of anyone getting an infection because they were uncut. in that regard, you would think there would be a market for penis wash in places where circumcision is unheard of. what would the infection be called? penisitis?

Beer · #**117** (**permalink**) 07-25-2007

explain to me again how foreskin removal reduces chances of getting std's and hiv? as far as I understood, everyone is equally as likely to get such diseases when exposed to them, foreskin or not.

Mrs. M · #**118** (**permalink**) 07-25-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beer

ive never seen nor heard of anyone getting an infection because they were uncut. in that regard, you would think there would be a market for penis wash in places where circumcision is unheard of. what would the infection be called? penisitis?

Balanitis is one infection that uncircumcised men can get, though chances are reduced with proper hygiene.

erikvv · #**119** (**permalink**) 07-25-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Balanitis is one infection that uncircumcised men can get, though chances are reduced with proper hygiene.

I think it would be extremely hard to scientifically prove that being circumcised reduces the chance of getting stds because the real world is not a scientific enviroment.

Mrs. M · #**120** (**permalink**) 07-25-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by erikvv

I think it would be extremely hard to scientifically prove that being circumcised reduces the chance of getting stds because the real world is not a scientific enviroment.

Balanitis isn't a std. As for proving that circumcision reduces the chances of getting an std, it's still up in the air and we may never have a definitive answer. However, here's a good start:

Quote:

Circumcision Halves H.I.V. Risk, U.S. Agency Finds
Circumcision appears to reduce a man’s risk of contracting AIDS from heterosexual sex by half, United States government health officials said yesterday, and the directors of the two largest funds for fighting the disease said they would consider paying for circumcisions in high-risk countries.

The announcement was made by officials of the National Institutes of Health as they halted two clinical trials, in Kenya and Uganda, on the ground that not offering circumcision to all the men taking part would be unethical. The success of the trials confirmed a study done last year in South Africa.

AIDS experts immediately hailed the finding. “This is very exciting news,” said Daniel Halperin, an H.I.V. specialist at the Harvard Center for Population and Development, who has argued that circumcision slows the spread of AIDS in the parts of Africa where it is common.

In an interview from Zimbabwe, he added, “I have no doubt that as word of this gets around, millions of African men will want to get circumcised, and that will save many lives.”

Uncircumcised men are thought to be more susceptible because the underside of the foreskin is rich in Langerhans cells, sentinel cells of the immune system, which attach easily to the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS. The foreskin also often suffers small tears during intercourse.

But experts also cautioned that circumcision is no cure-all. It only lessens the chances that a man will catch the virus; it is expensive compared to condoms, abstinence or other methods; and the surgery has serious risks if performed by folk healers using dirty blades, as often happens in rural Africa.

Circumcision is “not a magic bullet, but a potentially important intervention,” said Dr. Kevin M. De Cock, director of H.I.V./AIDS for the World Health Organization.

Sex education messages for young men need to make it clear that “this does not mean that you have an absolute protection,” said Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, an AIDS researcher and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Circumcision should be used with other prevention methods, he said, and it does nothing to prevent spread by anal sex or drug injection, ways in which the virus commonly spreads in the United States.

The two trials, conducted by researchers from universities in Illinois, Maryland, Canada, Uganda and Kenya, involved nearly 3,000 heterosexual men in Kisumu, Kenya, and nearly 5,000 in Rakai, Uganda. None were infected with H.I.V. They were divided into circumcised and uncircumcised groups, given safe sex advice (although many presumably did not take it), and retested regularly.

The trials were stopped this week by the N.I.H. Data Safety and Monitoring Board after data showed that the Kenyan men had a 53 percent reduction in new H.I.V. infection. Twenty-two of the 1,393 circumcised men in that study caught the disease, compared with 47 of the 1,391 uncircumcised men.

In Uganda, the reduction was 48 percent.

Those results echo the finding of a trial completed last year in Orange Farm, a township in South Africa, financed by the French government, which demonstrated a reduction of 60 percent among circumcised men.

The two largest agencies dedicated to fighting AIDS said they would now be willing to pay for circumcisions, which they have not before because there was too little evidence that it worked.

Dr. Richard G. A. Feachem, executive director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which has almost $5 billion in pledges, said in a television interview that if a country submitted plans to conduct sterile circumcisions, “I think it’s very likely that our technical panel would approve it.”

Dr. Mark Dybul, executive director of President Bush’s $15 billion Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, said in a statement that his agency “will support implementation of safe medical male circumcision for H.I.V./AIDS prevention” if world health agencies recommend it.

He also warned that it was only one new weapon in the fight, adding, “Prevention efforts must reinforce the A.B.C. approach — abstain, be faithful, and correct and consistent use of condoms.”

Researchers have long noted that parts of Africa where circumcision is common — particularly the Muslim countries of West Africa — have much lower AIDS rates, while those in southern Africa, where circumcision is rare, have the highest.

But drawing conclusions was always confounded by other regional factors, like strict Shariah law in some Muslim areas, rape and genocide in East Africa, polygamy, rites that require widows to have sex with a relative, patronage of prostitutes by miners, and men’s insistence on dangerous “dry sex” — with the woman’s vaginal walls robbed of secretions with desiccating herbs.

Outside Muslim regions, circumcision is spotty. In South Africa, for example, the Xhosa people circumcise teenage boys, while Zulus do not. AIDS is common in both tribes.

Nelson Mandela’s autobiography, “Long Walk to Freedom,” contains an unnerving but hilarious account of his own Xhosa circumcision, by spear blade, as a teenager. Although he was supposed to shout, “I am a man!” he grimaced in pain, he wrote.

But not all initiation ceremonies are laughing matters. Every year, some South African teenagers die from infections, and the use of one blade on many young men may help spread AIDS.

In recent years, as word has spread that circumcision might be protective, many southern African men have sought it out. A Zambian hospital offered $3 circumcisions last year, and Swaziland trained 60 doctors to do them for $40 after waiting lists at its national hospital grew.

“Private practitioners also do it,” Dr. Halperin said. “In some places, it’s $20; in others, much more. Lots of the wealthy elite have already done it. It prevents S.T.D.’s, it’s seen as cleaner, sex is better, women like it. I predict that a lot of men who can’t afford private clinics will start clamoring for it.” (S.T.D.’s are sexually transmitted diseases.)

Male circumcision also benefits women. For example, a study of the medical records of 300 Ugandan couples last year estimated that circumcised men infected with H.I.V. were about 30 percent less likely to transmit it to their female partners.

Earlier studies on Western men have shown that circumcision significantly reduces the rate at which men infect women with the virus that causes cervical cancer. A study published in 2002 in The New England Journal of Medicine found that uncircumcised men were about three times as likely as circumcised ones with a similar number of sexual partners to carry the human papillomavirus.

The suspected mechanism was the same — cells on the inside of the foreskin were also more susceptible to that virus, which is not closely related to H.I.V.

Correction: Dec. 18, 2006

Because of an editing error, a front-page article on Thursday about the effectiveness of circumcision in slowing the spread of AIDS misstated the source of a comment by Dr. Richard G. A. Feachem, executive director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, who said that his organization would now be likely to approve countries’ plans for sterile circumcision. He spoke by telephone to The New York Times; the comment was not taken from a television interview.
More Articles in Health »

NY Times Advertisement

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/abortion-civil-rights-healthcare-other-social-issues/37160-who-recommends-male-circumcision.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
WHO re