Circumcision and STDs: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) →Circumcised men have more risky sexual behavior: Amennd text. |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) →Contemporary view based on medical science: Add Van Howe 1999 paper |
||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
|DOI= | |DOI= | ||
|accessdate=2020-05-24 | |accessdate=2020-05-24 | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
Smith ''et al''. (1987) found evidence that the foreskin protected against acquisition of non-gonococcal urethritis, possibly "by effecting the physiologic milieu of the glans penis, by association with post-coital hygiene behavior, or by local immune defense mechanisms acting against the agent."<ref name="smith1987">{{REFjournal | Smith ''et al''. (1987) found evidence that the foreskin protected against acquisition of non-gonococcal urethritis, possibly "by effecting the physiologic milieu of the glans penis, by association with post-coital hygiene behavior, or by local immune defense mechanisms acting against the agent."<ref name="smith1987">{{REFjournal | ||
| Line 275: | Line 275: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
Van Howe (1999) carried out a survey of the medical literature concerning sexually transmitted infection. He referenced 104 documents in his survey and concluded: | |||
<blockquote> | |||
What began as speculation has resulted a century later in 60-75% of American boys being circumcised with no clearly confirmed medical benefit. In the interim, no solid epidemiological evidence has been found to support the theory that circumcision prevents STDs or to justify a policy of involuntary mass circumcision as a public health measure. While the number of confounding factors and the inability to perform a random, double-blind, propective trial make assessing the role of circumcision in STD acquisition difficult, there is no clear evidence that circumcision prevents STDs. The only consistent trend is that uncircumcised males may be more susceptible to GUD, while circumcised men are more prone to urethritis. Currently, in developed nations, urethritis is more common than GUD [34]. In summary, the medical literature does not support the theory that circumcision prevents STDs.<ref name="vanhowe1999">{{REFjournal | |||
|last=Van Howe | |||
|first=Robert S | |||
|author-link= | |||
|etal=no | |||
|title=Does circumcision influence sexually transmitted diseases?: A literature review | |||
|trans-title= | |||
|language= | |||
|journal=BJU Int | |||
|location= | |||
|date=1999-02 | |||
|volume=83 Suppl 1 | |||
|issue= | |||
|pages=52-62 | |||
|url=https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1052.x | |||
|archived= | |||
|quote= | |||
|pubmedID=10349415 | |||
|pubmedCID= | |||
|DOI=10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1052.x. | |||
|accessdate=2020-05-25 | |||
}}</ref> | |||
</blockquote> | |||
Dave ''et al''. (2003) studied data from the 2000 British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal 2000). They "found no significant associations between circumcision and being diagnosed with any one of the seven specific STIs."<ref name="dave2003">{{REFjournal | Dave ''et al''. (2003) studied data from the 2000 British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal 2000). They "found no significant associations between circumcision and being diagnosed with any one of the seven specific STIs."<ref name="dave2003">{{REFjournal | ||