[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
Wow, quite a bit of BS on this thread.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html
Here’s a little excerpt:
"Recent policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns.5,8-10 "
My opinion: You’re cutting off part of your dick for relatively little benefit.[/quote]
-Multiple studies14 comparing the prevalence of UTI in uncircumcised and circumcised male infants have shown a preponderance of UTI in uncircumcised infants.
Wiswell TE, Hachey WE. Urinary tract infections and the uncircumcised state: an update. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1993;32:130-134
-As noted, in a review published by one of the authors (S.M.) in 1998,6 the association between male circumcision and risk for HIV infection was investigated by 7 prospective studies (from 4 countries). All these studies showed a positive association between lack of male circumcision and risk for HIV acquisition, with approximately a 3-fold relative risk in uncircumcised men. The 1998 review6 also identified 37 crosssectional or retrospective studies, 26 of which (from 8 countries) reported a statistically significant association between lack of male circumcision and risk for HIV infection; an additional 5 studies found a trend toward an association. Again, uncircumcised men had ~3 times the risk of acquiring HIV infection as did circumcised men.
Moses S, Bailey RC, Ronald AR Male circumcision: assessment of health benefits and risks. Sex Transm Inf 1998; 74:368-373
-Strong evidence also links lack of male circumcision to increased risk for genital ulcer disease, particularly chancroid and syphilis. The 1998 review6 identified 11 studies that showed that lack of male circumcision is associated with these types of STDs and none reporting no association or circumcision associated with an increased risk of STD. The strong association between genital ulcer disease and risk for HIV infection lends additional credence to the studies that link lack of circumcision to increased risk for HIV acquisition.23
Pepin J, Plummer FA, Brunham RC, Piot P, Cameron DW, Ronald AR The interaction of HIV infection and other sexually transmitted diseases: an opportunity for intervention. AIDS 1989; 3:3-9
-Uncircumcised male infants often show penile bacterial colonization1731-33 and uropathic bacteria, particularly fimbriated Escherichia coli (the most common cause of UTI) preferentially bind to the mucosal surface of the foreskin.17,32,33 Bacterial colonization results in frequent contamination of voided urine in uncircumcised boys,34,35 and this result necessitates use of more invasive procedures (eg, catheterization, bladder tap) to obtain a valid urine specimen from boys whose foreskin is present. Also, virally infected Langerhans cells found in the foreskin36 have been implicated in binding HIV, a possible biologic explanation for the increased prevalence of HIV and other STD in uncircumcised men,37 in addition to increased propensity of the delicate foreskin mucosa to tear during intercourse providing a portal of entry for HIV.
Fussell EN, Kaack MB, Cherry R, Roberts JA Adherence of bacteria to human foreskins. J Urol 1988; 140:997-1001
Wiswell TE, Miller GM, Gelston HM Jr, Jones SK, Clemmings AF. Effect of circumcision status on periurethral bacterial flora during the first year of life. J Pediatr. 988;113:442-446
Lohr JA The foreskin and urinary tract infections. J Pediatr 1989; 114:502-504
Schoolnik GK How Escherichia coli infects the urinary tract. N Engl J Med 1989; 320:804-805
My opinion is that it may not be necessary, but the belief that it provides no benefits is also false.
