Well, that’s according to a new report by the World Health Organization. They say that it’s possible circumcised men may have a slightly lower risk of developing prostate cancer than those who still have their foreskin.
So, uh, yeah, if everything is still in its original casing you may have to worry about problems later down the line. However, the study falls short of proving unequivocally that it will reduce a man’s risk for cancer. What the study does show is that in two groups of more than 1,600 men who answered questions about their medical history, sex life and whether or not they were circumcised — half had prostate cancer, the others didn’t. Those who were circumcised showed a 15 percent lower risk of the disease.
“Circumcision before first sexual intercourse is associated with a reduction in the relative risk of prostate cancer in the study population,” researcher Jonathan Wright and his colleagues wrote.
The major concern about foreskin are the tiny tears that can occur during sex, which may aid in bacteria and other viruses entering the bloodstream. Scientists have already recorded a decrease in the spread of human papillomavirus (HPV) to women from men who are circumcised. In addition, last week, there were reports that African men who were circumcised were less likely to be infected with a particular herpes virus.
Yet, the procedure has become less popular in the last decade. Many have spoken out against the practice calling it a “barbaric” “painful and harmful ritual.” Which would include reports last week of a baby dying in a New York hospital after contracting herpes from a controversial circumcision ritual of the Jewish faith called metzitzah b’peh in which “the mohel places his mouth on the freshly circumcised penis to draw blood away from the cut.”
Sadly, last week’s tragedy is the second of such instances since 2005 where a death resulted, and a third case of herpes given orally allegedly from the same mohel involved in the case at the New York hospital.
Regardless of fault in the matter, reports like this one often ratchet up the debate regarding the faith-based aspect, which some feel straddles the line into anti-semitism which can make it a bit unclear where arguments regarding religious rituals end and public health concerns begin.
Nonetheless, reports like this fuel the argument against circumcision, which has long been thought of as a sanitary practice, and as a way to avoid increased STD risks and concerns about urinary tract infections. However, Jonathan Wright wouldn’t put “cure-all against prostate cancer” on the list of pros for the procedure either. It’s more something they’re recording due to a connection they’ve found.
“I would not go out and advocate for widespread circumcision to prevent prostate cancer,” Wright said. “We see an association, but it doesn’t prove causality.”
But it’s possible it could one day be added to the list of factors given to new parents in advocating for the procedure despite its growing number of detractors. From a medical standpoint, most physicians will say that the decision is entirely up to the parent since it’s not medically necessary. But of course, as we learn more, especially how STD’s and viruses impact the human body and its correlation to the forming of cancers, it may be too soon to tell what the best preventative course of action should be. So like many things this could continue to make the scientific study rounds continuing the circumcision debate. The outcome of which, if found to be a new reason for an increase in circumcisions, may be important for future generations of boys, but adults? Well, from what I hear, a retroactive circumcision doesn’t sound like much fun.
Four weeks of recovery, guys, and there’s a risk of the doc taking off too much! Yikes! Do they make slings for this sort of thing?
Image: Source
