Posted on Mar 27, 2009 | Comments 0
Some researchers claim that if, at birth, a male was circumcised it would reduce his risk from sexually transmitted diseases by a third.
Opponents may disagree with circumcising babies, believing that the procedure is cruel and unnecessary, might now have to stop and listen to the facts.
In America 1 in 2 newborns are circumcised, this figure has decreased mainly as a result of a declaration in 1999 stating that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the procedure should be routinely performed on males. This was the American Academy of Pediatrics and they now may have to step up and change their opinion.
For the study carried out by, amongst others, the Makerere University in Uganda had over fifteen hundred subjects who were randomly assigned to have the simple procedure performed on them. Their health was then followed along side a similar amount of men who were not circumcised. Ending in 2007 the duration was a total period of two years.
It showed that not only were incidences of common sexually transmitted diseases greatly reduced but also the risk from the HIV virus was actually halved. Aaron Tobian, one of the researchers, now believes that the benefit of automatic circumcision at birth is now overwhelming. Conditions such as herpes and human papilloma virus have no cure so their prevention is vital.
The numbers of male circumcision has also been in decline because of the insurance group Medicaid. They refuse to cover the costs of the procedure in sixteen US states where only a third of babies are circumcised. In all other states the rate is more than double, 70 % of newborns being operated on.
Posted in: STD's