Jump to navigation Jump to search


21 bytes added, 14 August
no edit summary
*:Secondly, the assumed protection would only affect healthy men who have intercourse with an infected woman. An infected man can infect a women by transmission of his bodily fluids, so that his circumcision status is irrelevant. Therefore, the use of condoms remains vital in containing the spread of HIV, which in return renders circumcision unnecessary
* Due to the inevitable loss of sensitivity as a result of circumcision, there is also the temptation to go without condoms, in order not to lose even more sensitivity.<ref>Hooykaas C, van der Velde FW, van der Linden MM. et al. The importance of ethnicity as a risk factor for STDs and sexual behaviour among heterosexuals. Genitourin Med 1991; 67(5): 378-83.</ref><ref>Michael RT, Wadsworth J, Feinleib J, et al. Private sexual behavior, public opinion, and public health policy related to sexually transmitted diseases: a US-British comparison. Am J Public Health 1998;88(5):749-54.</ref><ref>Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW. Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice. JAMA 1997;277:1052-7.</ref>
* Two studies that have been published in early 2007<ref>Gray RH and colleagues. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2007:369;657-666.</ref><ref>[[Robert C. Bailey|Bailey RC ]] and colleagues. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2007:369;643-656.</ref>, which investigated the effectiveness of circumcision as a means of reducing the spread of HIV from infected women to heterosexual men in African high risk areas, have been repeatedly subjected to strong criticism. Both studies were ended prematurely, which distorted the results. The men who had been circumcised for the study had to stay sexually inactive during the wound healing, which gave the intact control group more relative opportunity to become infected. The fact that the USA has both the highest rate of circumcised males in the western world, as well as the highest HIV infection rate, makes the studies look dubious. Besides that, several other studies concluded that circumcision does not have a significant impact on the risk of infection with HIV.<ref>Grosskurth H, Mosha F, Todd J, et al. A community trial of the impact of improved sexually transmitted disease treatment on the HIV epidemic in rural Tanzania: 2. Baseline survey results. AIDS 1995;9(8):927-34.</ref><ref>Barongo LR, Borgdorff MW, Mosha FF, et al. The epidemiology of HIV-1 infection in urban areas, roadside settlements and rural villages in Mwanza Region, Tanzania. AIDS 1992;6(12):1521-8.</ref><ref>Changedia SM, Gilada IS. Role of male circumcision in HIV transmission insignificant in conjugal relationship (abstract no. ThPeC7420). Presented at the Fourteenth International AIDS Conference, Barcelona, Spain, July 7-12, 2002.</ref><ref>Connolly CA, Shishana O, Simbayi L, Colvin M. HIV and circumcision in South Africa (Abstract No. MoPeC3491). Presented at the 15th International AIDS Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, July 11-16, 2004.</ref><ref>Thomas AG, Bakhireva LN, Brodine SK, Shaffer RA. Prevalence of male circumcision and its association with HIV and sexually transmitted infections in a U.S. navy population (Abstract no. TuPeC4861). Presented at the 15th International AIDS Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, July 11-16, 2004.</ref>
* Urinary tract infections (UTI): a UTI can be effectively treated with antibiotics, this was also proven by studies<ref>McCracken G. Options in antimicrobial management of urinary tract infections in infants and children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1989;8(8):552–55.</ref><ref>Larcombe J. Urinary tract infection in children. BMJ 1999;319:1173–5.</ref>. A Swedish study <ref>Mårild S, Jodal U. Incidence rate of first–time symptomatic urinary tract infection in children under 6 years of age. Acta Paediatr 1998;87(5):549–52.</ref> found that, during the first 6 years of life, the incidence of UTIs in boys was 1.8%, but in girls was 6.6%. UTIs are less common in boys after the first year of life. Mueller <ref>Mueller ER, Steinhardt, G., Naseer S. The incidence of genitourinary abnormalities in circumcised and uncircumcised boys presenting with an initial urinary tract infection by 6 months of age. Pediatrics 1997;100 (Supplement): 580.</ref> did not find a significant difference in UTI rates between circumcised and intact boys with normal urinary tract anatomy.
* Other studies suggest that circumcision is more likely to raise than to lower the generally low risk of acquiring UTI: multiple studies from Israel showed a strong correlation between ritual circumcision on the 8th day of life and postoperative UTI.<ref>Menahem S. Complications arising from ritual circumcision: pathogenesis and possible prevention. Isr J Med Sci 1981;17(1):45–8.</ref><ref>Cohen HA, Drucker MM, Vainer S, et al. Postcircumcision urinary tract infection. Clin Pediatr 1992;31(6):322–4.</ref><ref>Goldman M, Barr J, Bistritzer T, Aladjem M. Urinary tract infection following ritual Jewish circumcision Isr J Med Sci 1996;32:1098–102.</ref>

Navigation menu