15,638
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
{{Construction Site}}
Add Conclusion; Remove Construction Site template.
This article discusses the claims that male [[circumcision]] reduces the incidence of STDs other than HIV/AIDS. For a discussion of the alleged claims made regarding HIV, see [[Circumcision and HIV]].
|last=Van Howe
|first=Robert S
|author-link=Robert Van Howe
|etal=no
|title=Does circumcision influence sexually transmitted diseases?: A literature review
Beaugé suggests that the loss of penile skin from circumcision frequently results in tightened skin over the erect penis. This increases friction during intercourse and increases the likelihood of abrasions through which a pathogen can be introduced systemically, making the circumcised penis more likely to contract an STD. The increased likelihood of circumcised men engaging in active anal sex may also increase a circumcised man's susceptibility to STDs.<ref name="vanhowe1999" />
</blockquote>
==Conclusion==
The idea that circumcision could prevent sexually transmitted infection started with mere speculation by Victorian doctors in the 19th century and was reinforced by military orders to have servicemen circumcised during the 20th century.
Professor Robert S. Van Howe (2013) has provided a magisterial systematic review and meta-analysis citing 199 documents. Van Howe's paper appears to be conclusive. Van Howe's meta-analysis concludes as follows:
<blockquote>
Most specific STIs are not impacted significantly by circumcision status. These include chlamydia, gonorrhea, HSV, and HPV. Syphilis showed mixed results with prevalence studies suggesting intact men were at great risk and incidence studies suggesting the opposite. Intact men appear to be
greater risk for GUD while at lower risk for GDS, NSU, genital warts, and the overall risk of any STIs. It is also clear that any positive impact of circumcision on STIs is not seen in general populations. Consequently, the prevention of STIs cannot be rationally interpreted as a benefit of circumcision, and a policy of circumcision for the general population to prevent STIs is not supported by the evidence currently available in the medical literature.<ref name="vanhowe2013">{{REFjournal
|last=Van Howe
|first=Robert S.
|author-link=Robert Van Howe
|etal=no
|title=Sexually Transmitted Infections and Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
|trans-title=
|language=English
|journal=ISRN Urology
|location=
|date=2013-04
|volume=2013
|issue=
|pages=109846
|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/109846
|archived=
|quote=
|pubmedID=23710368
|pubmedCID=3654279
|DOI=10.1155/2013/109846
|accessdate=2020-05-25
}}</ref>
</blockquote>
Prevention of STDs and STIs no longer can be used to support the practice of male circumcision.
{{LINKS}}