Male Circumcision Helps Prevent Two STDs
March 28, 2009 7 Comments
According to the Associated Press article below, male circumcision helps protect heterosexual men against the AIDS virus by lowering the chance of catching it by up to 60%. In addition, protection against two other viruses were found: HPV (human papillomavirus) reducing risk by 35%; and herpes by 28%.
The findings are the result of studies done in three African countries, with findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Parents contemplating the procedure for their boys often consider religious or traditional reasons in making the decision. When my youngest son was born, one local doctor informed my wife and I that there was no medical justification for the procedure. Really?
This most recent study is not the first to show that circumcision can help protect men against certain STD infections. I am not a doctor, but I know how to “google” a topic to get information on the Internet.
Like many medical procedures, there are advantages and disadvantages. The decision to procede with something of this nature is as personal as it gets. Doctors should be sensitive to religious and traditional cultural values when advising patients and parents on medical procedures. They also should not dismiss research like this most recent study.
When my first son was born, we were fortunate enough to have a doctor that presented both sides of the argument to us. The decision was ours to make, but he was ethical enough to give us information both for and against. I wish all those in the medical profession would do the same.
Reference: Study: Male circumcision helps prevent two STDs
About Jason R. Raines
Eagle Watch
jimsweb.net
WSRP BLOG
It seems that there is more and more pressure to “accept” the practice of circumcision when the rates have been continually falling. Perhaps the use of circumcision had nothing to do with the results in Africa. Why is the study not performed in the US, where there is a much larger number of participants, almost equally cut/not cut?
As a possible parent, why not take the conservative role and “wait”, the child will certainly not need STD protection for some time, whereby other cures may be available. Seems a very significant decision regarding the body of another for the possibility that they might become infected.
If only 1 in 100 children grow up and wish they were not cut, isn’t that one too many? Isn’t that a travesty to that individual? I think so.
justaguy, thanks for the comment. I would disagree with you about pressure to “accept” the practice of circumcision. It seems to me that in an increasingly secular society, religous and traditional views on the subject are under more pressure than ever. My concern is that doctors respect people’s religous and cultural values, when it is appropriate.
The study referenced in the post is just a recent one that was covered in the media. That the study was done in Africa should not be enough to invalidate the results. Other studies have shown circumcision to offer some protection against certain STDs as well. This is not a “cure”, nor is it 100% effective in preventing infection. It merely has been shown to offer a certain degree of protection.
Ultimately, I believe medical decisions like this should strictly be a doctor/patient decision. The doctor should be sensitive to differing views, and offer complete information without trying to “color” the decision. In the case of minors, it is appropriate for parents to make decisions for their children.
Jason, I also feel strongly that medical conditions should be strickly between the doctor and the patient, however such a radical proceedure for the potential protection against a future possibility seems crazy. The patient should be the one to whom the proceedure will be taking place. Regarding the parents position, unless there is a valid medical reason (not for future protection against STD’s) the choice must be left up to the owner of the organ.
Should parents always be given to freely choose medical alterations in the interest of future protection? If so, how would we react should someone choose to remove other body parts since they “heard” of issues that others had and did not want this to be part of their childs life? Breast cancer comes to mind. Should parents choose to remove those from their young daughters because of a family history of the cancer. This would prevent the cancer in 100% of the cases that this was employed. I do not advocate this, only providing an example.
justaguy,
As you mentioned earlier, circumcision rates in the U.S. are currently around 50%. It is not my intention to try and advocate for or against the procedure, just to allow parents and individuals the opportunity to make decisions for themselves.
For some, studies of possible health benefits may sway their decision. For others, potential benefits may not warrant it. However, doctors should not hide this information from patients. In certain religious and ethnic groups, (Jews, Muslims, some Christians) the procedure may have roots in religious or traditional values. You contention that the decision “must” come from an adult individual does not allow for these groups to freely practice their religion. In addition, if the decision for circumcision is put off, it will be more complicated to administer the procedure later.
In a free society, some people will opt for the procedure, and some won’t. That’s okay with me. Families and individuals need to be able to make those types of decisions for themselves. In cases where the child is not old enough to make decisions for themselves, it is the parents that will make the call. Parental responsiblity is a serious matter, and parents should not take decisions like this lightly. However, I will vehemently resist anyone (government or individuals) that try to tell parents what they “must” do in raising their children. Let people have access to information, and decide for themselves.
Unlike vaccinations, circumcision is a permanent alteration of anothers body. There is not a good decision that can be made short of leaving it alone. Too many choose the “look like daddy”, or “locker room issue”, which falls under cosmetic – not an appropriate evaluation for such a permanent decision.
I have grave concerns about the childs acceptance of the decision made for them if cosmetic is the reason. What if the child, now an adult, is in opposition to the decision? Permanently removed, too bad (how I see the decision for many)
Regarding the more complicated proceedure later, I have to wonder where this comes from. As a person grows, the affected area will be larger (thus more easily excised), will be the owners’ choice, and will be accompanied by proper pain management during and after. Sorry, but I do not accept the comment that waiting is worse. Research Mr. Kellogg’s, who started the proceedure for non-religious reasons, who recommended that this be done in order for the child to experience the “pain” for the purspose of halting masterbation – what a man…
The time is coming, when parents will not be able to authorize unnecessary surgery – IE:removing healthy foreskin tissue. When we had our two sons my husband and I realized that we are their caretakers – we have no right to alter any part of their bodies. It will be their call, when they are old enough to make any changes they care to.
The following study is scary in that the consequences of ‘male circumcision’ might be truly reflected in adult male behavior.
http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/?p=457 Pain & Circ
Anna Taddio, a pain specialist at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, noticed more than a decade ago that the male infants she treated seemed more sensitive to pain than their female counterparts. This discrepancy, she reasoned, could be due to sex hormones, to anatomical differences — or to a painful event experienced by many boys: circumcision. In a study of 87 baby boys, Taddio found that those who had been circumcised soon after birth reacted more strongly and cried for longer than uncircumcised boys when they received a vaccination shot four to six months later. She concluded that a single painful event could produce effects lasting for months, and perhaps much longer. Effects might include emotional and behavioral problems like anxiety and depression, or learning disabilities.
JR, I can certainly understand making the decision not to have the surgical procedure done. What is frustrating to me, is the lack of concern when doctors do not give patients/parents complete information. Another concern of mine, is people’s willingness to take away the religious freedom of others, by restricting practices through government force.