Is Circumcision relevant?

I have a bit of a query. I hope it’s the right kind of thing to mention here.   I had been wondering if there were any aspects of prostate cancer, its treatment and the side effects of treatment where whether or not the penis was circumcised might be relevant. (I am not circumcised, and have heard plenty over the years about the possible relevance or circumcision to the spread of disease etc))   So I had been going to post with an simple question as to whether having a foreskin or not effects things differently, eg problems with having a catheter in, with keeping things clean/dry when leaking, or with sexual difficulties etc. But then today I found this website:   http://www.britpro.com/default.asp?p=information_prostate   which contains a link to another site about circumcision, the key page of which is probably:   http://www.circinfo.net/prostate_cancer.html   This site seems to be suggesting/claiming that among other things uncircumcised men are more likely to get prostate cancer, that men of the Jewish faith rarely get prostate cancer. And that circumcision thus prevents prostate cancer. And so if more money was available for circumcisions, then less money would be needed to treat prostate cancer.!!!   I don’t trust the science of this at all. For one thing how many urologists are keeping records of the religious beliefs of their patients? And is prostate cancer also rarely encountered among Muslims?   Without wanting to be facetious I feel that on the basis of that they could perhaps just as easily conclude that pork must cause prostate cancer as Jewish men don’t eat pork. And if other ideas mentioned on this site are taken to an absurd extreme then I might as well say that if everyone had their breasts removed at birth, then there would be no more breast cancer. ( I’m not including in that last remark women with high incidence of BC in their families who make an informed choice to have mastectomies. And I wrote what I just did even in the context of having just spoken to a dear friend who has just had to have her post-mastectomy reconstruction surgery postponed as she has a cold,)   Am I misunderstanding something or is there something weird and slightly alarming here vis a vis the role of the (absent) foreskin?   (The Forum rules say I can post a link to a helpful website, so I hope it’s okay to include these links, though they feel like unhelpful websites to me.)   Alfred

Alfred, interesting post. I did a Google search myself because I was curious and here is what I have learned since this was the first time I have heard of this theory.

Apparently, uncircumcised men have more STDs. Certain STDs, such as HPV, can lead to chronic inflammation of the prostate which, some researchers believe, can increase a man's risk for prostate cancer. The article went on to say that the Jewish male population has a very low rate of PCa because they practice circumcision.

I did not get the impression that this study, which is European-based, was conclusive one way or the other. In the U.S. black men are more likely to develop PCa than non-blacks but I don't know why. As with most cancers, genetics, diet and lifestyle play a role but as we all know, there are no hard and fast rules.

Thanks for posting this, Alf.

Alfred, I come from a family of non-circumsised men, and all I will add, is that it makes having a catheter more of a hassle being installed, and I have had that done 8 times so far.

I asked my dr when I was dx. if not being circumsised had any thing to do with me getting PC, he said absolutely not.

We have to remember, that circumsism is a religious rite in its origin, not a medical necessity.

David in SC

Thanks for response. I too was under the impression that nobody yet knew anything very much about what causes or prevents PCa. I was wondering if there was anything to be learned from adding the snipped or not aspect to signatures. Alfred

Well, well - I am snipped and follow a strict kosher diet and still got PC. So go ahead enjoy your bacon and Chicken Parmigiana if you want. I'm not sure how healthy it is for your heart though....

I am uncircumcised, and apart from pCa, have never had any health problems in that department.

As Geebra said, most US men are circumcised and there is a high level of pCa in the US. But some of us here are not, yet still have pCa. So on the basis of that very unscientific survey, there doesn't seem to be much correlation between the two.

However, I am much more ready to believe that diet, especially in childhood and as a young adult is relevant. I grew up in a farming area, so there was plenty of red meat in my diet (yes bacon too!) along with fruit and vegetables. Not much fish, and when we got it, a real treat.

I remember someone here who was a long-time vegetarian and still got pCa, but we don't know at what stage in life he became vegetarian.

I like my red meat too much to give it up now; I have cut back, but for someone our age, it is probably too late -- the horse has bolted.

Anybody else prepared to point the finger at red meat in their early years?

When I was diagnosed, I did some extensive reading on diet and came away convinced that our North American Diet is the primary cause of most of the late onset diseases we all suffer from including heart disease, cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure etc.

If you study the folks in this world who are on a plant based diet, you will see that they rarely contract these diseases. I believe we are eating ourselves to death. We eat prepared foods and fast foods to excess.

As a result of this reading, we became vegetarian. After 60 days, my blood pressure dropped from 138/98 to 110/70 with no change in medications. Can't dispute the facts on that one. I feel better, lost my belly fat and have more energy.  My surgeon at my Da Vinci procedure said I was the fittest patient he had operated on in a long time.

I believe it has also excellerated my quick recovery.

Now I step down off the podium and say that is my two cents on diet.

Keep well,

Regards,

Bill

I'm circumcised, been a vegetarian for over fifteen years, and am not overweight and exercise daily, but I still got PC. Perhaps it was caused by stress with which I deal with in my job.

Just my opinion to weigh back in. From reading all the posts in this thread, it looks like we all are looking at ourselves to assign blame for us getting prostate cancer. Probably a very normal reacation, might even have some theraputic value to a degree.

I am not convinced by anyone I have spoken too, including lots of medical professionals or by anything I have read or researched, that we can know what caused us to have PC.

The diet issues have been argued for years, and there is no positive proof that any diet or dietary change helps or hurts. Again ,being on a good diet is great for a large number of health issues.

The vegetaraian arguement has been played out too, even lifetime vegetarians and dedicated vegans get PC.

As far as vitamins and supplements, in relation to PC, I still agree with my GP and URO, they feel that all men are doing is masking the symptons and producing expensive urine.

It's not that I am negative to any one thing, but once you have your pc dx, that cat is out of the bag, any lifestyle or dietary changes you make from that point are still positive to the rest of your health issue. I would never advocate someone giving up and spending the rest of their lives with terrible habits just because they have PC. All things in moderation.

Most will never know why we have our cancers. Some will be heredity, most all comes down to genetics, exposures to toxins, can be a hundred reasons that make no rhyme and reason by themselves.

I feel its best to forgo the blame portion of getting cancer, and move on to acceptence. When you eliminate the blame, a lot of the guilt factor goes away too. All the I should have done, could have done, wished I had done, went out the window once your dx was confirmed.

The getting it part has to go down as providence, luck, a bad draw, or whatever term you are most comfortable with.

Accept it, research it to death, gather all the knowledge you can handle on your cancer, weigh in the realisitic options that you have both the access to and the resources for, get multiple opinions, and then ultimately, you just have to make you own decision for your own body.

Not a question of being heartless, just a question of being realistic. If doctors can make mistakes in suggesting and handling our treatments, then we as patients will make mistakes too in our choices. You have to do what you think is right for you, and the rest of the process is out of your hands at that point.

Hope someone finds this helpful.

David in SC

Alfred, I have the chocolate crave too, one of my vices. I don't drink or smoke or even drink tea or coffee, but got to have my sweets, I think I get that from having a Brit for a Mum myself.

All of us should be on healthy diets, and use moderations in the things we love to eat that might not be healthful in general. It was interesting when I discussed health issues in general with my GP, my Uro, and my Rad. Oncol. dr. The one thing they agreed on, was if a person had to choose just one lifestyle change to improve the overall quality of the rest of their life, then they should quit smoking.

They were amused at the amount of work people go through with strict self-enforced diets, or even engaging in rigorous exercise routines, yet contined to smoke. They said it was kind of self-defeating if you are still doing something so very harmful to your body.

The cirumsisim angle which you started this thread with, I had discussed in the past, and can't find a single doctor that would agree with a link to be non-circumsised and having higher incidents of PC or any other cancer. We have to remember, we are born with a foreskin, having it removed started with religious purposes, not medical ones.

David