Circumcise men to reduce cervical cancer in women?

Cheyenne

Ms. Smarty Pantsless
Joined
Apr 18, 2000
Posts
59,553
We haven't had a discussion on circumcision on the board in a few months. Here's an added twist to the argument of which is better- natural or circumcised.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1921000/1921837.stm

Women who have sex with a circumcised man have lower rates of cervical cancer, scientists have found. They also suggest men themselves are less likely to develop genital warts.

In a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, they suggest the health benefits could be because circumcised men are less likely to pick up the human papillomavirus (HPV. )

They suggest the virus is responsible for up to 99% of cases of cervical cancer.

Commentators suggest that a general adoption of circumcision could cut cervical cancer rates by 20%.

The general adoption of circumcision might lead to a further reduction in the incidence of cancer of the cervix of 23% to 43% .

Drs Adami and Trichopoulos -

They add the risk of penile cancer, HIV and other infections could also be reduced.

Regular condom use and proper hygiene were also ways infection risks could be reduced, they said.

An HPV vaccine is also now being tested.

Previous research has also found uncircumcised men are at a much greater risk of becoming infected with HIV from heterosexual sex than circumcised men.

Cervical cancer killed around 1,250 UK women in 2000.


'Plausible explanation'

The researchers, led by Dr Xavier Castellsague of Llobregat Hospital in Barcelona looked at data from seven studies from five countries across the world.

They found HPV in nearly 20% of uncircumcised men, but in fewer than 6% of all circumcised men.

The researchers estimate that a woman's chance of developing cervical cancer was at least 58% lower if their current partner was circumcised, even if the partner had a history of multiple partners.

Writing in an editorial in the journal, Dr Hans-Olov Adami of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and Dr Dimitrios Trichopoulos of the Harvard School of Public Health said the idea "that circumcision may reduce the risk of cervical cancer in the female partner has long been suspected".

They said the new study "provides a biologically plausible explanation."

They added: "If we assume that 25% of the men around the world are circumcised, then the general adoption of circumcision might lead to a further reduction in the incidence of cancer of the cervix of 23% to 43%".

But they admitted that advocating circumcision as a realistic and significantly important addition to other strategies to combat cervical cancer "remains to be documented".

But Cancer Research UK advises it had been thought women whose partners were circumcised were less likely to get cervical cancer because the secretions of the foreskin covering the penis in uncircumcised men may be irritant to the cervix and so possibly a factor in cervical cancer.

But it adds many now thought that as long as uncircumcised men are careful about keeping their genitals clean, the risk of cervical cancer in their partners should not be any greater than that for circumcised men.

Cancer Research UK adds: "It is likely that this association has risen because certain religious groups who practice circumcision, such as the Jews, also have a low risk of cervical cancer due to low levels of promiscuity."
 
Cheyenne said:
They found HPV in nearly 20% of uncircumcised men, but in fewer than 6% of all circumcised men.
Well, that's just fucking fabulous. A mere six percent.

(Bitter subject for me. The guy that raped - and infected - me was circumsized.)
 
Mischka- your luck was not just bad then, it was very bad.
Sorry to hear that.
 
As I understand it human papillomavirus is sexually transmitted.
Is the argument, Cheyeene, not the a bit like saying, lets's take out kid's tonsils to prevent throat infections?

It is possible to reduce the incidence of STD, as we see with aids rates in the west compared with those in Africa.

The key issues here, for me, is education. Information is the most effective tool initially. (And screening, medically)

At another level, given the massive investment in schooling, lagely directed towards producing young people as viable economic units, it seems to me shortsighted and reprehensible that curriculum designers give so little space to human relations education.
 
What I am getting out of this is HPV causes cervical cancer. Circumcision is just another variable in the mix along with keeping the genitals clean. You have to read to the very end to find out that unclean cut men have about the same numbers as uncut.
 
All this after my roommate spent 1/2 hour talking to me about why foreskin is good.
 
I honestly didn't think it was that big a deal to be cut or uncut until this past week when I was told by my ex that she didn't like the look of what I had, then reading this...

I still don't think it's that big a deal. As long as I keep it soapy clean every morning and night.. Where is the problem?
 
Foreskin is a good thing, Laz.

Studies can be made biased in any manner the powers that be want it.
 
freescorfr said:
As I understand it human papillomavirus is sexually transmitted.
Is the argument, Cheyeene, not the a bit like saying, lets's take out kid's tonsils to prevent throat infections?


Actually, that is exactly why I had my tonsils taken out as a teenager. I was sick SO much before that and hardly at all after.

There was an article in our local paper based on this study, too. The study is reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

"But the researchers found a strong difference in the risk of cervical cancer when it came to women whose partners were especially active sexually. Women whose high-risk partners were not circumcised were five times more likely to get cancer than those whose partners were circumcised.

High-risk men were defined as those who had at least six sex partners and started having sex before 17."

My guess is we have a lot of "high- risk" men here at Lit.
 
Cheyenne ...

Time to dig up that old SMEGA thread link ... that'll clinch it! :D

(it did for me)
 
Make mine untrimmed please.

I think the key points to be taken from the study for the general population is that the use of a condom and regular checkups are prudent and responsible for all sexually active people. I do not endorse nor would I reccomend circumcision on a routine basis. It is a needless procedure in most instances and I for one think it is a horrible thing to do to a infant. Childhood is filled with enough trauma without this type of mutilation. If this seems harsh, then look to the instances of infant males who have been scarred from the procedure. Not to mention that it is cosmetic in most instances why do we as a society continue to be so superficial that we cannot accept the human body in it's natural state....... Just my humble opinion.
 
Cheyenne said:
"Cervical cancer killed around 1,250 UK women in 2000."


3,409 people were killed on the roads in the UK that year. So let's all give up cars, too.
 
Tangentially

If I recall the statistics correctly from when I was contemplating this decision with regards to the birth of my son, the other correlation with circumcisions is a ZERO rate of cancer of the penis in circumcised men, which although uncommon is not a non-existent form of cancer.
 
foreskin...SMEGA...

Glad I'm circumcised!

Just wish they didn't wait till last year to do it...
(joking...it was two years ago)
:D

got my tonsils taken out too...
 
Re: Cheyenne ...

Cherry said:
Time to dig up that old SMEGA thread link ... that'll clinch it! :D

(it did for me)

Uh uh, I don't think so! That was not a pretty thread, probably better left dead. Ewwwww!
 
Pheonyx said:
Aint No one getting near my cock with a sharp knife.

exactly.

try it and die, people.

*idely fingers shotgun*
 
Back
Top