Circumcision of Filipino males linked to low HIV prevalence in RP
CAPE TOWN, South Africa - An official of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS on Saturday (Sunday in Manila) praised the Philippines for having one of the lowest HIV/AIDS prevalence rates in the Asia-Pacific, which she attributed to the country's practice of almost universal male circumcision.
"One of the major reasons for the Philippines' low HIV prevalence rate is the fact that it practices almost universal male circumcision. We know that male circumcision protects against HIV partially, about a 60 percent reduction for men and eventually that means Filipino women are less likely to encounter men who are HIV positive so they have lower rates of HIV," Dr. Catherine Hankins, chief scientific adviser to UNAIDS, she told abs-cbnNEWS.com.
"The Philippines, in adopting male circumcision despite the fact that it is primarily a Roman Catholic country has meant a better control of the epidemic."
Data from the Department of Health National AIDS Registry shows that from January 1984 to December 2008, there were 3,589 HIV Ab seropositive cases reported in the Philippines. Of that number, 2,787 (78%) were asymptomatic and 802 (22%) were AIDS cases. Seventy percent (2,500) were males.
Hankins said male circumcision substantially reduces female-to-male transmission of HIV and is recommended by UNAIDS and the World Health Organization for HIV prevention in countries with high rates of heterosexual HIV transmission and low male circumcision prevalence.
She said various studies have shown the benefits of male circumcision including lower rates of urinary tract infections in male infants who are circumcised; lower risk of penile cancer and lower prevalence of some sexually transmitted infections such as human papillomavirus (HPV) and herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2).
She said circumcised men do not suffer health problems associated with the foreskin such as phimosis (an inability to retract the foreskin) or paraphimosis (swelling of the retracted foreskin causing inability to return it to its normal position). She said circumcised men also find it easier to maintain penile hygiene.
Two studies also suggest that female partners of circumcised men have a lower risk of cancer of the cervix, which is caused by persistent infection with high-risk oncogenic (cancer-inducing) types of human papillomavirus.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Share your views
Culture
Can you please stop fighting about it,both sides have both disadvantages,It is a part of pinoy culture that is why they defend it and it is their cultural right to do so,the same thing can be said on those who do female circumcision on Basilan,they defend that part of their culture too especially it is deemed harmless by the WHO....
why try to justify that it is advantageous?
Why are we pinoys always try to justify circumcision to be advantageous? Circumcision prevents proper production of smegma which is the natural lubrication produced by the male genitalia, it also prevents the penis' head from unnecessarily drying up that results in reduced sensation. Irresponsible care of one's penis causes undesirable odor and accumulation of residues. No studies have proven that this natural lubricant causes cancer nor it is carcinogen. There (is) even scientific claim that there are more occurrence of genital cancer on males without smegma on there penises.
just read this scientific articles:
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/vanhowe2006/
http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/kaplan/.
I am not convinced that circumcision is the reason for low prevalence of AIDS in the Philippines. I am more convinced that there are less Pinoys who engage with several partners compared to countries with higher prevalence of AIDS. Men tend to have sex with others apart from their wives that's why there are more men in the PH who have AIDS. Less promiscuity, less chance of infection.
so why is the rate just as low in Ireland and Poland?
If we found out that cutting off part of a girl's genitals reduced her risk of contracting an STI, would that make it acceptable?
The Stallings study in Tanzania showed exactly that.
I'm tired of people trying to justify cutting parts off other people's bodies. The way to avoid HIV is not to have unsafe sex with HIV+ partners, not to have part of your genitals cut off. Ireland and Poland are Catholic and almost no-one there is circumcised, yet they have rates just as low as the Philippines.
Circumcision is a dangerous distraction in the fight against AIDS. There are six African countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised: Rwanda, Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Cameroon, the HIV rate is 4.1% among circumcised men, but only 1.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn't happen. We now have people calling circumcision a "vaccine" or "invisible condom", and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms. Meanwhile, recent research seems to show that male circumcision *increases* the risk of male-to-female transmission.
ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost lives, not save them.