This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Irvin R. Berman, MD
Southeast Georgia Regional Medical Center Brunswick

JAMA. 1997;278(3):201.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—Dr Laumann and colleagues¹ conclude that circumcision provides no preventive medical benefit, thus reviving an ongoing controversy. While issues related to the risk of childhood urinary tract infection with and without circumcision may be debatable, the authors have been blinded to the medical benefits of circumcision for adults. Indeed, only 1 week following the report by Laumann et al, Royce et al² reported that "male circumcision consistently shows a protective effect against HIV infection," with an 8-fold increased rate of HIV disease among uncircumcised men.² Royce et al further report a greater incidence of HIV in sexual partners of uncircumcised men and speculate that the abundance of Langerhans cells in the foreskin may be a contributing factor and that the presence of a foreskin actually may increase infectiousness.

Periodic arguments against circumcision have been supported by a variety of evidence, much of which has been directed toward . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?