Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Circumcision could reduce HIV rates, US studies show

48 replies

hazlinh · 15/12/2006 02:37

link here (hope this works):
link

Or read below:

Circumcision Reduces HIV Rates, U.S. Studies Confirm
12.13.06, 12:00 AM ET

WEDNESDAY, Dec. 13 (HealthDay News) -- U.S. researchers in Africa said Wednesday that they found that circumcision is such a good defense against HIV infection that they shut down two studies early, and instead offered all participants a chance to be circumcised.
One study in the east African country of Kenya showed that circumcision cut adult males' HIV infection risk from heterosexual intercourse by 53 percent, while another study in Uganda lowered the risk by 48 percent, according to results released Wednesday.

The findings, financed by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), pointed out that the latest conclusions confirmed previous investigations into the value of circumcision as a protection against HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. This is especially important in Africa, where AIDS is an epidemic in many countries, infecting an estimated 25 million people on the continent.

Despite the good news, there is still plenty of reason for caution, AIDS experts said.

"Male circumcision is a difficult intervention to implement, and the preventive effect is relative, not absolute," said Thomas Coates, an AIDS specialist and a professor of medicine at the University of California at Los Angeles. "The magnitude of effect is 50 to 60 percent, which still leaves ample room for people to get infected with HIV."

There are other caveats as well: The study did not look at male-to-female transmission, and it was also not clear whether circumcision makes it less likely that gay men could transmit HIV to each other.

In the United States, homosexual transmission of HIV is more common than heterosexual transmission, the experts said. And most men in the United States are circumcised, making the procedure less effective as a possible prevention tool.

Still, the findings could have plenty of meaning in Africa, where HIV is commonly spread between men and women.

Studies have suggested the value of circumcision in the past, but researchers wanted to confirm the previous findings.

According to the NIH, most adult Africans are circumcised, but the rate drops below 20 percent in some areas of southern Africa where HIV and AIDS are common.

In one of the two studies, researchers enrolled 2,784 HIV-negative, uncircumcised men in Kenya beginning in 2002. The other study, in Uganda, started in 2003 and enrolled 4,996 HIV-negative, uncircumcised men.

Some of the men were assigned to immediately undergo circumcision, while others had to wait two years.

Then researchers studied whether the circumcision had any effect on their rates of getting HIV.

The results were so encouraging that an oversight board halted the studies this week, and ordered that all participants be given circumcisions instead of having to wait.

In Kenya, researchers found that only 22 of the 1,393 circumcised men in the study were infected with HIV, compared to 47 of the 1,391 men who had yet to be circumcised.

The numbers for Uganda weren't immediately available.

"Circumcision is now a proven, effective prevention strategy to reduce HIV infections in men," Robert Bailey, a study investigator and professor of epidemiology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said in a statement.

It's not entirely clear how circumcision reduces HIV infection. But researchers have suggested that the foreskin may provide a moist, safe environment for the AIDS virus and provide more immune cells for HIV to infect.

Coates called the study results the "second greatest finding in HIV prevention," right behind research that confirmed drugs could stop mother-to-baby transmission of the AIDS virus.

Still, he added, "combination prevention" remains crucial -- combining circumcision with using condoms, reducing sexual partners, and delaying the first time people have intercourse.

The Associated Press reported that the link between male circumcision and HIV prevention was first noted in the late 1980s. The first major clinical trial, of 3,000 men in South Africa, found last year that circumcision cut the HIV risk by 60 percent.

More information

The Nemours Foundation's Web site discusses the pros and cons of circumcision

OP posts:
paulaplumpbottom · 15/12/2006 10:31

All sorts of research has been done to this and in also lowers the risk of other infections as well.

calebsmum · 15/12/2006 13:45

Really can't see how removing a tiny bit of skin makes any difference when it comes to getting infected with HIV? Still wouldn't dream of getting DS circumcised when he was newborn.

Pruni · 15/12/2006 13:48

Message withdrawn

FioFio · 15/12/2006 14:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

MrsWaggsnapps · 15/12/2006 14:03

I think because the foreskin leaves a moist and warm environment, it provides an ideal habitat for bacteria and viruses to grow. If those men with foreskins are scrupulously cleaning their penises before and after sex, it probably wouldn't be a problem but how many do...

It would certainly affect stats for chlamydia and the disease that can cause cervical cancer (can't for the life of me remember what that's called).

I was seriously considering circumcision for my son when he was born but got swayed by the anti circ. lobby, I wish now I'd stuck to my guns.

I think Pruni is right tho that it will probably have a negative impact on safe-sex practices

paulaplumpbottom · 15/12/2006 14:52

If this baby is a boy I want to get him circumsized but my husband is against. I do feel its cleaner. Its not like it hurts them terribly. Whats the big deal.

expatinscotland · 15/12/2006 14:55

Limiting the number of sexual partners you have and using condoms also cuts infection risks.

I'm American myself but there's no way I'd have my son circumcised for non-medical reasons.

Cleaner?! Huh?! My husband would DIVORCE me before he allowed out son to be mutilated in such a way for no reason other than cosmetics.

expatinscotland · 15/12/2006 14:57

I was really glad to find out that, in the UK, you'd be hard-pressed to find a doctor who is willing to perform circumcision w/o a religious/cultural or medical reason.

I must say, I prefer my intact husband .

uwila · 15/12/2006 15:04

I agree with you, Paula. It is more hygenic. There are plenty of infection stories on mumsnet to back this point up. In the UK you have to go private and put with a rather surprised GP when she looks in his nappy. But, it can be done. I think, however, you are in the states. You can easily get it done there.

What I think is cruel is when a boy of say 5 or 8 years has to be circumsised. Infants don't remember and aren't embarraassed about their private parts.

poppynic · 15/12/2006 15:09

What do you mean "it's not like it hurts them terribly." You're cutting the skin off what is probably the most tender part of the body of a tiny baby. !!! My grandmother, who was a Karitane nurse, said she thought my brother's circumcision as a baby nearly killed him.

I think if boys want to chop bits off their bodies for whatever reason it's something they should get to choose when they are older.

paulaplumpbottom · 15/12/2006 15:13

I live in Belfast but am from the States. I was there when both of my nephews were circumsized and they do use anithsetic. Bringing down the rate of infections is a medical reason.

Tatties · 15/12/2006 15:14

Surely the best way to avoid STDs is to use a condom religiously. The study only said it reduces the risk of infection though, so it can't even be used as a foolproof preventative measure. Just sends out a dangerous message IMO. Much better to encourage condom use and good personal hygiene, and leave the foreskin intact to serve its many functions.

poppynic · 15/12/2006 15:17

Surgery generally hurts when the anisthetic wears off. And any surgery poses risks.

expatinscotland · 15/12/2006 15:18

So, if a study came out that said female circumcision lowered a woman's risk of contracting an STD, would you be all for that, too?

paulaplumpbottom · 15/12/2006 15:19

Its not just sexually transmitted diseases though, urinary tract infections are also greatly reduced for instance.

expatinscotland · 15/12/2006 15:19

Hmm, a hypothetical scenario as a medical reason for genital mutilation. Interesting.

ingym23 · 16/12/2006 20:38

I have two sons, neither of whom are circumcised. My younger one is only 4 weeks old and I could not imagine allowing anyone to take a surgical instrument to his penis.

I don't think this issue is anything to do with neonatal circumcision anyway.

I think the owner of the penis should be the one to decide if the potential benefits outweigh the risks.

MKGnearlyimmaculateconception · 16/12/2006 20:52

I'm in the US and my ds slept through his circumsicion so I'm not sure how cruel it is.

vikinggirl · 27/02/2007 21:47

Mrs WaggsNapps says "the foreskin leaves a moist and warm environment" which encourages bacteria to grow. Actually if this was true it would be a reason to cut off your clitoral hood and external lips Mrs WaggsNapps. Mother Nature has spent many millions of years designing the foreskin to be protective, pleasurable and to a certain extent self cleaning. Soap and water can do the rest.

themildmanneredjanitor · 27/02/2007 21:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

expatinscotland · 27/02/2007 21:52

Cringe

A circumcised bloke.

NO, thanks!

paulaplumpbottom · 27/02/2007 21:54

really? My Dh has lovely penis , but it would be lovelier cut. Just my preference

hercules1 · 27/02/2007 21:55

I am amazed this practise is allowed to be done still. It is clearly a violation of human rights and cannot see how anyone could possibly argue it wasnt.

hercules1 · 27/02/2007 21:56

preference? What about letting the actual person decide it they want to be mutilated?

expatinscotland · 27/02/2007 21:57

Yes, really. I think circumcised ones look freaky.

I understand some people have to have them removed for medical reasons.

That's too bad.