15,508
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Contemporary view based on medical science: Wikify.
==Contemporary view based on medical science==
Evidence-based medicine does not support the subjective opinion of the early [[circumcision]]-promoters.<ref name="vanhowe2013">{{REFjournal
|last=Van Howe
|first=Robert S.
}}</ref>
[[Circumcision ]] advocates had falsely claimed that the sub-preputial space was a filthy [[cesspool]] of [[infection ]] that was eliminated by [[circumcision]]. However, Parkash et al. (1982) showed that the sub-preputial moisture actually contained lytic material with antiseptic qualities that protected against disease.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Parkash
|init=S
}}</ref>
Smith et al. (1987) found evidence that the [[foreskin ]] protected against acquisition of non-gonococcal urethritis, possibly "''by affecting 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
|last=Smith
|first=Gregory L.
}}</ref>
Cook et al. (1993) reported their findings that [[circumcised ]] men were more likely to have genital warts than [[intact ]] men. The authors concluded, "''the presence of the [[foreskin ]] may confer nonspecific protection of the proximal [[penis ]] from acquisition of HPV infection''."<ref name="cook1993A>{{REFjournal
|last=Cook
|init=LS
}}</ref>
Cook et al. (1994) compared the incidence of sexually transmitted disease in [[intact ]] males with [[circumcised ]] males who attend the STD clinic at the [https://www.uwmedicine.org/locations/harborview-medical-center Harborview Medical Center] in Seattle, Washington, USA. They reported that genitally [[intact ]] men were more likely than [[circumcised ]] men to have syphilis and gonorrhea and were less likely to have visible warts.<ref name="cook1994">{{REFjournal
|last=Cook
|first=Linda S.
}}</ref>
Bassett et al. (1994) investigated the factors associated with HSV-2 infection in heterosexual men at a sexual disease clinic in Sydney, Australia. They reported that, "''we found no evidence of the presence of an [[intact ]] [[foreskin ]] being a risk factor for HSV-2 infection''."<ref name="bassett1994">{{REFjournal
|last=Bassett
|first=Ingrid
Donovan et al. (1994) also surveyed men at a sexual disease clinic in Sydney, {{AUSC|NSW}}, Australia. They reported:
<blockquote>
''In this clinic-based prospectively collected survey we found no association between male [[circumcision ]] status and STDs that are common in our population. Perhaps importantly, our study group was relatively racially homogeneous, lack of [[circumcision ]] was not a marker of lower socioeconomic status (using the index of education level; Table 2), and we controlled for a major parameter of sexual behaviour (lifetime number of sexual partners)''.<ref name="donovan1994">{{REFjournal
|last=Donovan
|first=Basil
</blockquote>
Laumann et al. (1997) used data from the ''National Health and Social Life Survey'' (NHSLS) (1992) to report on the effects of male [[circumcision ]] in the [[United States]]. With regard to STDs, Laumann et al. reported:
<blockquote>
''With respect to STDs, we found no evidence of a prophylactic role for circumcision and a slight tendency in the opposite direction. Indeed, the absence of a foreskin was significantly associated with contraction of bacterial STDs among men who have had many partners in their lifetimes. These results suggest a reexamination of the prevailing wisdom regarding the prophylactic effect of circumcision. While circumcision may have an impact that was not picked up by the NHSLS data, it seems unlikely to justify the claims made by those who base their support for widespread circumcision on it''.<ref name="laumann1997">{{REFjournal