In addition, circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of penile cancer, and the rate of urinary tract infection in male infants. You can read all about it in the article “Decreased Incidence of Urinary Tract Infections in Circumcised Male Infants” by Dr. T.E. Wiswell.
Regarding penile cancer rates, I would just like to point out that, according to the CDCP penile cancer rates are 0.8 per 100,000, lower than the rate of 1.4 for male breast cancer in the USA. Yet,somehow, no one is suggesting that all infant males undergo routine mastectomies. Using circumcision to prevent penile cancer is misguided. Look no further than the American Cancer Society, which states that "most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended as a way to prevent penile cancer."
Regarding urinary tract infections (UTI) in males, while I would love to look over the results of a study which is 23 years old, I prefer to get my information from some relatively newer resarch. Say from this study which found that the UTI rate for uncircumcised males is 1 in 49, nearly identical to the 1 in 47 seen in females. Yet, again somehow, no one is suggesting that all infant females have their genitals modified to lower their UTI rates. According to another study, surgeons would need to perform 195 circumcisions to prevent 1 hospitalization due to UTI. In fact, the interpretation of the authors is that "Although our findings support the notion that circumcision may protect boys from UTI, the magnitude of this effect may be less than previously estimated."
Let's see, that would mean that at the going rate of $215 (at least at my local hospital) that we would need to spend over $41000 in surgery to prevent spending just over $1000 in hospitalization (from Schoen et al, 2000). Luckily, I have a degree in economics, so I can tell you that doesn't make financial sense.
You wouldn't trust a financial planner who told you to play the lottery as a means of investment; so why should you trust a doctor who essentially does the same thing?
3 comments:
I have to say I find all those reasons pretty absurd too. It seems when someone publishes something favorable about circumcision, critical thinking goes out the window. Take your cervical/penile cancer example. Don't those at popular science know that an efficient vaccine has been developed that combats the types of HPV that are thought to be responsible for most of these cases? :rolls eyes:
Joe - Well, it is an opinion piece, so it may not reflect the views of Popular Science.
I'm not aware that HPV has been shown to be a risk factor for penile cancer specifically, though it is a risk factor for several other types of cancer.
While the research cited is statistically significant, that doesn't mean it is clinically relevant. This is why epidemiologists and doctors have created metrics like "odds ratios", and "relative risk". It is also why economists do cost benefit analysis. However, this author seems to have passed over any discussion of such things.
True, it is an opinion piece but the author does seem to omit a lot in the discussion.
I do get the impression that at least the ACS believes there is a link. Interestingly, with regard to circumcision, the ACS also states: "In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This suggestion was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. However, most researchers now believe those studies were flawed because they failed to consider other risk factors, such as smoking, personal hygiene, and the number of sexual partners." So again I am surprised that people keep dredging up the HPV/Cervical/Penile cancer especially when there are much better ways to protect yourself, such as the vaccine which I hear they are looking at approving for men too.
While I understand why such metrics as relative risk are used, I think they tend to be misused in many cases. Often a relative risk will sound large until you know what your actual risk is if you know what I mean. :)
The thing that seems most glossed over to me is any examination of morals or ethics they're always conspicuously absent.
Post a Comment