Circumcision cuts STD risk

[Donna]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15593753/

Circumcision cuts STD risk, major study shows
25-year study finds substantial benefit to controversial procedure


Updated: 1:56 p.m. PT Nov 6, 2006
Circumcised males are less likely than their uncircumcised peers to acquire a sexually transmitted infection, the findings of a 25-year study suggest.

According to the report in the November issue of Pediatrics, circumcision may reduce the risk of acquiring and spreading such infections by up to 50 percent, which suggests "substantial benefits" for routine neonatal circumcision.

The current study is just one of many that have looked at this controversial topic. While most research has found that circumcision reduces the rates of HIV (the virus that causes AIDS), syphilis and genital ulcers, the results are more mixed for other STDs.


The American Academy of Pediatrics has called the evidence "complex and conflicting," and therefore concludes that, at present, the evidence is insufficient to support routine neonatal circumcision.

In the current study, the researchers analyzed data collected for the Christchurch Health and Development Study, which included a large birth cohort of children from New Zealand. Males were divided into two groups based on circumcision status before 15 years of age. The presence of a sexually transmitted infection between 18 and 25 years of age was determined by questionnaire.

The 356 uncircumcised boys had a 2.66-fold increased risk of sexually transmitted infection compared with the 154 circumcised boys, lead author Dr. David M. Fergusson and colleagues, from the Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences report.

Moreover, this elevated risk was largely unchanged after accounting for potential confounders, such as number of sexual partners and unprotected sex.

The authors estimate that had routine neonatal circumcision been in place, the rate of sexually transmitted infections in the current cohort would have been reduced by roughly 48 percent.

This analysis shows that the benefits of circumcision for reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infection "may be substantial," the authors conclude. "The public health issues raised by these findings clearly involve weighing the longer-term benefits of routine neonatal circumcision in terms of reducing risks of infection within the population, against the perceived costs of the procedure," they add.

(c) Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

[Becca]

Interesting the way the article is titled to automatically make the reader assume that circumcision is necessary...yet if you actually read the article, they clearly stated that the evidence is conflicting and doesn't warrant an argument for regular neonatal circumcision.

Confusing, and interesting, to say the least.

[Donna]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse Girl Interesting the way the article is titled to automatically make the reader assume that circumcision is necessary...yet if you actually read the article, they clearly stated that the evidence is conflicting and doesn't warrant an argument for regular neonatal circumcision. Confusing, and interesting, to say the least.

I thought the same thing. But it is interesting that on this large scale of a study that they found up 48% of the cases "could have" been prevented. I know this issue is always a hot topic around here, so i debated on even posting it.

[Becca]

Nah - debates are healthy...even if they do resemble beating a dead horse

It says in the article that they got the info as to who'd had STDs and who hadn't based on a questionairre. That right there would lead one to question the validity of the numbers.

[Donna]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse Girl Nah - debates are healthy...even if they do resemble beating a dead horse It says in the article that they got the info as to who'd had STDs and who hadn't based on a questionairre. That right there would lead one to question the validity of the numbers.

yea, but most of these surveys are anonymous. so what would really be the point in lying? no one is going to know. i see what you mean though.

[Becca]

Oh - I didn't know they were anonymous. But now that I think about it...duh.

[Sophie*]

I think there are some major flaws in the methodology used in this study. Circumcision may prevent STDs, but I've yet to see any substantial and credible evidence to support the theory.

[Jill]

instead of connecting intact penis to STD's maybe we should link STD's to unprotected or irresponsible sex.

[Becca]

Well, they need to be linked to whatever the cause - which is why they do research - but your point is absolutely valid in that ALL STD's can be avoided by engaging in safe and responsible sex.

[Sophie*]

Originally Posted by Jill instead of connecting intact penis to STD's maybe we should link STD's to unprotected or irresponsible sex.

ooooooh that's an idea!