A recent Johns Hopkins study showed that Ugandan men who are circumcised are significantly less likely to contract herpes and human papillomavirus (HPV) (which can cause warts in men and cancer in women). Circumcision also lowers the risk of getting HIV.
So the scientists who did the study are recommending that doctors everywhere inform mothers-to-be about the numbers.
This article quotes a couple of British doctors who aren’t so sure.
One of them makes some sense, saying that the circumstances in Uganda may be different from those in Western countries.
Women in the West have easier access to the HPV vaccination, and at least heterosexual males in the West are far less likely to get HIV than in Africa. Condoms (which are more effective) are easy to obtain. In other words, even if circumcision would make a big difference to public health in Uganda, it’s questionable how much difference it would make in the UK.
Still, I don’t see why we shouldn’t inform people about the facts. It lowers risk, but your son may not be much at risk anyway (if he’s not gay and/or uses a condom).
The other doctor makes very little sense at all. I’ll just quote him:
“Sure, a dry skinned penis is a bit less likely to contract HIV, herpes and possibly genital warts but it will get infected eventually.”
Reading him as I assume he means to be read, if a person sleeps around a ton, he shouldn’t expect a circumcision to save him from getting sick. And it only makes it “a bit” less likely to get sick, so why bother with the procedure?
But the study found that these men were 25% less likely to get herpes and 30% less likely to get HPV (the warts he says “possibly” about). This particular study wasn’t about HIV, but others have shown at least a 51% decrease in the likelihood of getting HIV.
51%! That’s not “a bit” in my opinion, and neither is 25 or 30 percent.
And anyway, maybe the person isn’t sleeping around a ton. I bet there are a lot of people who have had unprotected sex a few times, without having done it enough to claim that they’ll “eventually” get infected.
The doctor is also is worried about the message:
“It suggests that it is women who infect innocent men – let’s protect the innocent men. And it allows men who don’t want to change their irresponsible behaviour to continue to sleep around and not even use a condom.”
I am so sick of people worried about what MESSAGE a scientific conclusion sends. (As I’ve posted before.) What the hell does the message have to do with it?
If something IS, then it IS. Leave your worries about messages to the readers of the Kabbalah.
Anyway, I don’t understand how this suggests that we’re blaming women. I literally don’t know what he’s talking about. Doesn’t a condom protect men as well? When a man doesn’t get sick, he doesn’t get his partner sick either. That’s good, right?
Oh, by the way, male circumcision also reduces the spread of HIV from an infected man to an uninfected woman. Again by about 30%. So is this sending a message that men infect women, and we need to protect women by slicing off part of a man’s penis? Horrors!
And circumcision doesn’t ALLOW men to do anything at all. It simply makes them less likely to get sick and less likely to make women sick as well. Men don’t get cervical cancer, but they can pass HPV to women. Those men who don’t pass on HPV are doing better by women and themselves.
I’m not saying that circumcision is the best option. But let’s have a sensible discussion about it. Geez.
You want to depoliticize health care? How foolish.
I went through a lot of unpleasantness to improve my 5-year survival chance by 30% (from 50% to 65%), so a 51% decrease in the chance of getting a deadly disease sounds *huge* to me. I’d have more important parts cut to achieve that.
If your eye offends you, pluck it out, preferably using a skilled team of orbectomologists in a sterile setting. If it’s trying to kill you, well do the math (short division) before the math does you.