Strollerderby : STDs

Doc Doesn't Just Support -- He Recommends -- Circumcision

Madeline Holler — Wed, 06 May 2009 21:26:00 GMT

The debate over circumcision strikes me as one of those arguments where first you come to a decision, then you pull together all supporting/refuting evidence. Those who oppose circumcision wave around reasons like number of nerve endings lost in the surgery, personal decision, barbary. Those who really want their sons to undergo the surgery trot out reasons like tradition, appearance, decrease in AIDS/STDs, penile cancer and so on.

So surely each of us parents of sons have rattling around in the backs of our minds the what-ifs and buyer's remorse of how we treated the days-old baby's foreskin.

Which is why fanatics on either side of the debate make me suspicious. And also how I know that the decision my husband and I made with regard to our third child (first boy ... so close! We almost didn't have to think about it!) was the right one, in that I think with regard to circumcision, as long as the parents are in agreement, you can't go wrong.

All that said, Dr. Edgar Schoen really gets on my nerves. He's the author of a new book, Circumcision, Sex, God and Science: Modern Health Benefits of an Ancient Ritual, that appears to say you'll ruin your boy's life if you don't get him snipped. Among the many problems he'll encounter are bladder infections, STDs and AIDS and the shame of giving a girlfriend cervical cancer. He also brings up cleanliness -- a lifetime of cleanliness! -- and women's preference (undocumented, I might add) as two of the big bennies. Can't you just see the swarm of flies surrounded the in-tact man's crotch?

Dr. Shoen's list of academic accomplishments and professional interests are in researching and performing newborn circumcisions. I'm not saying he can't be objective about it. But I'd say he's on a mission. Lack of foreskin, as I'm sure thousands of circumsized AIDS patients will tell you, doesn't actually innoculate a man from getting the virus. Perhaps it lowers the chance -- the risk is still there. Foreskin or no, all boys (and girls!) should be taught and encouraged to use condoms!

What do you think of a doctor not just saying, "circumcision is harmless!" but saying, "it's better"? Was the circ decision a difficult one in your family?

Partly Private: The Long Journey to a Short Cut

They Say: Today's Kids are Rude, Here's Why

Genius, Kids Aren't Born With It

Surrogate Pregnancy: Who's Next?

Are You Mom, Mommy or Mother?

They Say: Circumcision Tied to Lower Rates of STDs

Kate Tuttle — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:02:00 GMT

A new study seems to confirm earlier findings that circumcision may offer men protection against some sexually transmitted diseases. The research is far from clear, though, and will likely not clear up any of the confusion facing parents deciding whether or not to circumcize their newborn sons (once performed at rates approaching 90% in the United States, routine infant circumsicion is hitting all-time lows, with something like half of all boys born in the Western US avoiding the procedure).

The study, published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine, did not look at infant circumcision in the United States. Doctors followed a group of 3,000 uncircumcized Ugandan men, none of whom were infected with herpes (specifically HSV2, the strain that causes genital lesions). Half were immediately circumsized, while men in the other group underwent the procedure two years later. At the end of the survey, according to the New York Times, "the researchers estimated that circumcised men had a 25 percent reduced risk of infection." A smaller subgroup was also evaluated for HPV, the human papilloma virus that causes genital warts and is a leading cause of cervical cancer in women. In that group, the risk for circumsized men was calculated to be 35% lower.

Critics will doubtless point out that studies of adult men in Africa may not signify equivalent results when looking at children born and raised in the United States. And the trend for the past decade or so has seen a rise in advocacy groups who argue that the procedure is an unnecessary surgery that may be harmful to a baby boy's future sexual life. Partly as a result of this movement, fewer doctors push for the procedure, and now Medicaid does not cover it in 16 states. If studies like this do turn out to apply across the board, then perhaps that pendulum will swing the other way. For parents expecting a baby boy, the decision will always be a tough one; here's hoping that some scientific consensus will emerge to help guide the way.

More by this author:

Late-Term Abortion Provider on Trial in Kansas

Boomer Grandmothers: Out Of Control?

Move Over, Booties! Here Come Knitted Boobies

Think Your Baby's Car Seat Is Safe? Think Again

Parents Forgo Circumcision to Save Money

School Assignment Forces Kids to Buy Birth Control

JeanneSager — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:23:00 GMT

What would you do if your kid was sent out to buy condoms . . . on a school assignment?

If you're Linda Strobl, you take it to the Canadian newspapers in outrage.

The irony? Strobl is a public health nurse, who says it's OK to teach kids about sexually transmitted diseases. She's horrified, however, that her fourteen-year-old was directed by his class to A. buy condoms and B. participate in a contest to see who can put a condom on a wooden phallus.

Strobl told the National Post that her son came home complaining that he didn't want to do his health homework, embarrassed by the assignment.

Part of me is thanking my lucky stars, once again, that my daughter is still a pre-schooler, and I don't have to deal with this. HOWEVER, I'm still shocked that parents will profess how open-minded they are - hey, it's OK to teach about STDs - but in the end how impractical they are. Essentially, Strobl is saying they can teach kids about STDS but not actually help kids prevent them.

It's embarrassing to buy condoms for kids. I get that. Researching a post about actor Zac Efron's mom buying his condoms, I found surveys showing thirty percent of sexually active teens are too embarrassed to actually condoms. But with condoms still leading the pack in prevention of STDs (not to mention pregnancy), that's a hurdle every kid has to cross if they're going to have sex. And if they're not sexually active, I'd like to think that they're figuring out how to properly use a condom before they end up in the dark in the backseat of a car, fumbling with this thing and eventually tearing it because they just don't get it . . . and go ahead and have sex anyway because, hey, they're teens and they're infallible.

Is making a fourteen-year-old buy condoms really that bad? Is making a fourteen-year-old practice putting a condom on a fake penis really something to be horrified about? These are life skills, and skills that most teens still have a harder time taking a lesson on from Mom and Dad than they do an unrelated adult (like a health teacher).

There are a lot of occasions where embarrassing kids is potentially harmful to their psyches, but people get embarrassed. It happens. Sometimes, it's necessary. And until you practice something you're uncomfortable with, you're always going to be embarrassed.

In this case, an ounce of embarrassment is worth the pound of prevention.

Image: The Sun

FDA Asked to Approve Gardasil for Boys

JeanneSager — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:25:00 GMT

If you thought parenting boys meant you were off the hook on having to decide whether or not to go with the Gardasil shot, listen up.

Gardasil, the HPV prevention shot aimed girls nine to twenty-six, has been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by maker Merck for consideration as a vaccine for boys.

Obviously, we're not talking about cervical cancer here (please, tell me that was obvious), but a Merck study tracked four thousand boys ages sixteen to twenty-six who were given Gardasil and found it prevented ninety percent of cases of penile cancer and genital warts caused by the four common virus strains targeted by the vaccine.

The proposal calls for the vaccine to be approved for boys in the same age group as that already approved for girls - nine to twenty-six - and all report indicate it would come at a similar cost.

The three-series shot has drawn controversy for its $360 pricetag in the past, and its not the only one. Parents have had mixed reactions to the vaccine, some rushing out to have it administered to be on the safe side. As reported on Babble last month, however, others parents say Gardasil has caused paralysis in their daughters. I'm still undecided, myself, and hoping more conclusive research on the risks and benefits is available six years down the line when my daughter would first be "of age" for Gardasil.

But if the Merck study results are to be believed, this could save little boys lives. What do you think parents, would you take your sons in for the shot?

Image: Jezebel

Source: USA Today Via Jezebel

Vatican to Women: The Pill Pollutes Environment, His Testes

New to Birth Certificate: Does Mom Have Chlamydia?

Mother Blames Cervical Cancer Vaccine For Daughter's Paralysis

Teen Has Cancer and Lives in a Car

Mother Blames Cervical Cancer Vaccine For Daughter's Paralysis

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:20:00 GMT

The cervical cancer vaccine can’t seem to untangle itself of controversy. First, abstinence groups worked overtime to block its widespread use, arguing that it would encourage premarital sex. What it actually does is prevent girls from contracting four of the strands of HPV that are responsible for the majority of cervical cancer cases in the world. Yes, HPV is an STD, but the vaccine has almost nothing to do with premarital sex. Since HPV is so easily spread, it is entirely possible that a girl could wait until marriage to have sex and then contract HPV if her husband had had as much as one sexual encounter before the marriage.

Fortunately, the abstinence argument against the vaccine has been mostly steamrolled, particularly in the U.K., where a government-funded program aims to save 400 lives a year by administering the Cervarix vaccine to 300,000 12- and 13-year-old girls. (In the U.S., the more commonly used, but very similar, vaccine is called Gardasil.)

But the program has gotten some bad—and scary—press recently, after a 12-year-old girl became paralyzed from the waist down shortly after receiving the vaccine at school. Ashleigh Cave’s mother, Cheryl, believes that the shot was implicated in her daughter’s illness, but doctors have claimed that the vaccination was unrelated to the sudden onset of Ashleigh’s dizziness and eventual loss of the use of her legs.

Although nothing I’ve read indicates that Ashleigh has been definitely diagnosed yet, it seems clear that she has Guillain-Barré syndrome, which can cause paralysis, and which has previously been linked (perhaps wrongly) with the cervical cancer vaccine.

13 girls are reported to have been diagnosed with Guillain-Barré after receiving the Gardasil vaccine in the U.S., causing some concern among parents about the safety of getting their daughters vaccinated. However, considering the total number of girls who received the vaccine and the natural incidence of the disease, 13 is within the number of people who would be expected to fall prey to Guillain-Barré just by chance. Doctors and health experts continue to assert that there is no reason to believe the cervical cancer vaccine is unsafe.

Still, it is only too easy to understand why Ashleigh’s mother harbors her doubts, considering that her daughter’s initial diagnosis was “vertigo and generalised myalgia, probably due to recent vaccinations.” I hope further investigations can set the public’s collective mind at ease.

Photo: straightfromthedoc.com

Defying Doctors, Parents Blame MMR Vaccine on Toddler's Sudden Death

Coroner Finds No Link Between Vaccine and Toddler's Sudden Death

New Abortion-Opposition Strategy to Cripple Planned Parenthood

Shannon LC Cate — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:00:00 GMT

That the far-right Family Research Council is gunning for Planned Parenthood is nothing new. Their latest tactics, however, are uniquely timely. The Wall Street Journal reports that the latest volley in the reproductive health wars is a claim from the far-right that government money should not be used to fund the health clinics in these difficult financial times.

Arguing that the clinics are well-funded without states' money, they say it's time to let them go it alone. In fact, about a third of Planned Parenthood's budget comes from state contributions. To remove them would severely damage the clinics, leaving low-income women and teen girls even fewer options for health care. Because even though Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the United States, abortion services account for only 3% of their work. The other 97% includes contraception provision, STD testing and treatment, cancer screening and prevention and other Ob/Gyn and some men's reproductive health care.

I have taken advantages of Planned Parenthood's low-cost, basic women's health services, as have many, many women I know at times when we've been uninsured, or under-insured students or working for peanuts in retail, food service, or those dues-paying jobs for middle-class young adults that pay in little but prestige. I can only imagine how vital Planned Parenthood's services are to people in a more permanent state of financial challenge. It would be criminal to cut support for them now, when more and more people are losing jobs and thus healthcare.

Caseworker Helps 13-Year-Old Obtain Contraception

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:30:00 GMT

An Australian mother is outraged that the Department of Community Services helped her 13-year-old daughter obtain a prescription for the birth control pill. Judith Meredith, who suffers from a mental illness, volunteered to turn her 13-year-old daughter Lauren over to state care. But she is horrified by what that care entailed.

After police discovered that Lauren had been living with an 18-year-old boy for three days, her case worker set up an appointment for her to see a doctor. Lauren left the appointment with a prescription for the pill.

While her mother agreed to the medical exam, she was incensed when she learned that her daughter had been prescribed contraception. “I said it is going to stop an unwanted pregnancy but it won’t stop STDs ... they are promoting promiscuity,” she said.

Of course, Meredith is right to be alarmed that her young daughter is having sex, and to be concerned about STDs. But unfortunately, in this particular case, it seems the state was forced to choose the lesser of two evils, since there is no way to ensure that a sexually active teenager will stop having sex—unless we return to the days of chastity belts. While it seems that the DOCS failed Lauren in some regards—for instance, she should certainly not have been living with an 18-year-old—I’m not sure her case worker should be faulted for attempting to prevent a 13-year-old from getting pregnant.

I just hope that Lauren's doctor and case worker thoroughly explained to her all the risks and responsibilities of being sexually active.

Photo: Syracuse.com

Down with “The Herp”: 1 in 4 New Yorkers Has Herpes

Cole Gamble — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:00:00 GMT

Hey New Yorkers, I got a fun and quick game for ya. Gather up three of your friends. Now take a good look at the circle of you. One of you has herpes. See, wasn’t that fun? According to the New York Health Department, over a quarter of the Big Apple’s denizens has got the magic touch.

Now you might be saying, “Oh they must be including cold sores as herpes.” Nope, that 26% number is all gential herpes. This is compared to a national average of 19%. Wait, what? Almost 1 in 5 people in America has Herpes? What is this, the seventies?

Whenever news of increased STDs or teen preganacies comes out, you find two opposing reactions. On one side, and I might add the side I reside on, people believe this is proof we need to be educating and encouraging our kids to seek protected sex. On the other hand, there is that constituency that clamims the only solution is to preach abstinence—a strategy that has been shown to increase STD and teen preganacy rates.

So c’mon New York. Give your kids the safe sex talk. And hey, NY, I still love you. I just wish I could wrap a big condom around you.

Photo: AP

Estrogen Cream: A “Natural Condom”

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:41:00 GMT

Is there anything that penis cream can’t do? Many times I have asked myself that question, and I'm beginning to think the answer is no. University of Melbourne researchers have examined the possibilities of using estrogen to reduce the risk of contracting HIV, with some promising, though still inconclusive, findings.

By slathering a bit of estrogen cream on Mr. Happy at least once week, you naturally thicken the layer of keratin on your penis. Since keratin is insoluble and tough as nails, it presumably creates a natural barrier against the virus—what U. Melbourne professor Roger Short called a “natural condom.” Naturally, the theory has not been tested in actual trials, since that could, uh, kill people. But researchers remain hopeful that estrogen cream will prove more popular—and maybe even more effective—than raincoats of the rubber variety.

Photo: Discover Magazine

Birds, Bees, and STDs

Brett Singer — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:33:00 GMT

I realize that this statement makes me a huge wimp, but I'm not looking forward to having "the sex talk" with either of my sons. And if Brian Hennessey and Radia Daoussi have their way, that talk is going to include AIDS.

Hennessey and Daoussi have made a film that follows their daughters around the 2006 International AIDS Conference in Toronto. The girls, ages 6 and 4, ask various health experts questions such as "How does AIDS get into your body?" This leads to discussions of condoms (one girl "thought the bright packages were candy") and also homosexuality ("A man can do it with a man if you like it.")

I have so many problems with this. First of all, why are the filmmakers bringing their young children to an AIDS conference in the first place? According to the Times, the focus of the documentary shifted to the girls during an "unplanned stop at the Condom Project's table," and that "a volunteer's struggle to turn her boilerplate spiel into words simpler than "destigmatize" made it clear that a child's innocence would elicit good interviews." So they used the kids as props to make their movie more interesting. Nice.

I'm not a prude, and I realize that children grow up faster than they used to. But in order to talk about AIDS, you first have to talk about sex. What age do you want to do that? Is a 4-year-old emotionally mature enough to process this information?

Then there's the notion that only the young are in need of being educated about this topic. When I was in high school, I had a part-time job at a health care center, working primarily in the lab. One day we got a phone call that a "Blue Dot" patient was coming down for a test. "Blue Dot" was the code the center gave to AIDS patients. I was the youngest worker there by about 15 years, but I was quickly told that I would be the one to sit out front and check him in. I was also told that I had to wear gloves (I didn't want to, since we never did that at the front desk, but I was told it was "too dangerous"), and that everyone else at the lab would be hiding in the back room. The man came downstairs, looking thin and rather sad. I looked at his form and started to write him into the lab record. Then my supervisor popped out, looked over my shoulder - never acknowledging the patient - and told me that this particular test could only be done in the morning. Then she scurried away, leaving me to explain the situation. In other words, if anyone had thought for a second to look at the test the doctor was ordering, the entire scene would have been avoided.

In other words, the person who was most aware of the lack of danger of being in the same room as an AIDS patient was also the youngest person there. Yes, this was in the 80's, and many people didn't understand anything about AIDS, just as many people didn't understand that wearing leg warmers in public was a bad idea. But it is absolutely true to say that there are still many people in the world of all ages who lack important knowledge about this disease. (The leg warmer problem has pretty much been solved, however.)

So what do the folks here think? How old were you when you first had "the talk" with your parents? What is the right age to hear about this stuff? Should we add "condoms and STDs" to "the birds and the bees"?

photo: eztakes.com

Pre-eclampsia Linked With Herpes

Madeline Holler — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:09:00 GMT

In today's continuing coverage of STDs, this next report should raise plenty of eyebrows from now on whenever a new mom discusses preterm birth or high blood pressure during her pregnancy.

Researchers in Australia have linked exposure to viral infection -- especially the herpes type -- to both.

From Science Daily:

The research discovered the presence of viral nucleic acid in heel-prick blood samples from 1326 newborn babies, taken over a 10-year period. More than 400 of these babies were diagnosed with cerebral palsy.

High-blood pressure during pregnancy has been an enduring mystery for medical researchers, so these findings are exciting.

Now, of course all herpes viruses aren't of the STD variety. Chicken pox and shingles are also brought on by herpes. Which brings up plenty of questions besides, like the chicken pox vaccine or women who had chicken pox.

But finding a connection is good news in any case. Pre-eclampsia is a difficult and serious condition. Again, Science Daily:

Pregnancy hypertension (high blood pressure) occurs in up to 10% of first pregnancies throughout the developed world, such as in the UK, the United States and Australia. When untreated, it can lead to uncontrolled epileptic fits of eclampsia with loss of baby and mother. It is a common cause of maternal death in Third World countries.

States Turn Down Abstinence-Only Sex Ed Funds In Favor of Teaching, You Know, Actual Sex Ed

Kelly Mills — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:33:00 GMT

Federal money for Cold Showers 101 may someday be a thing of the past. More and more states are declaring they will not apply for federal funding for abstinence-only sex education programs, and a couple others have applied but stated they will not stick with the abstinence-only curriculum, therefore rendering themselves ineligible. If you don't think this is a big deal, remember, these states are turning down MONEY--your tax dollars, in fact. That says something. Now why would states say they won't try and get the funds? "The jump in states opting out follows a series of reports questioning the effectiveness of the approach, including one commissioned by Congress that was released earlier this year. In addition, federal health officials reported last week that a 14-year drop in teenage pregnancy rates appeared to have reversed." Great.

Oh, but I absolutely loooove the response of supporters of "just say no" sex ed. Stan Koutstaal of the Department of Health and Human Services says "My greatest concern about states dropping out is that these are valuable services and programs. It's the youths in these states who are missing out." Youths who really, really need to sit in a classroom and be told all about the evils of sex without any information that could actually benefit them. Yeah, totally missing out. And Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association says the abstinence programs don't just waggle fingers and tsk tsk, but "They include relationship-building skills and medically accurate discussions of sexually transmitted diseases and contraception." Kids, this is a condom. It might help protect you from STDs, but since you won't be having sex, you don't need to know how it works. This, however, is what syphillis looks like, and you don't want that, do you?

I must confess this is one of those issues that gets me more irate than almost anything else, so I'm giddy that states are taking a stand. Now perhaps the money I send to the federal government could be used for education programs that aren't utter crap? Really, abstinence-only policy makers who ignore research and reality can kiss my ass without protection.

Horn-dog Teens and 40-Year-Old Virgins Have Big Problems

Kelly Mills — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:36:00 GMT

Another possible nail in the abstinence-only sex education coffin: Researchers have found possible troubles for both folks who lose their virginity early and people who hold out in cold-shower land for a long time. Early "bloomers" were found to have a more risk factors for STDs, like many partners and a history of drunken sex. However, both early and late starters had increased risk of sexual dysfunction. We don't know exactly why this is so, but researchers said that those who started sex later may "create health risks by impeding development of the emotional, cognitive, and interpersonal skills that are crucial to satisfactory sexual functioning and general well-being." See? I was just developing my interpersonal skills in my high school boyfriend's VW Bug, as well as learning that a stick shift in the lower back can really impede your enjoyment of heavy petting.

What is considered "early" and "late" to lose the old virginity? For survey respondents, around 14 was early (hi!), 17 or 18 was average, and 22 or older was late. Now, when I posted before that kids who had sex young were less likely to engage in delinquent behavior (too busy getting their braces stuck together, perhaps) some of you thought it was a lot of hooey. But I will say, is sex among teens the worst thing ever? I'm not saying we want 12-year-olds to be having sex, but late teens, consent, and protection...I don't see anything wrong with that. And yeah, I can see how having a committed young love relationship where you go at it like bunnies could not only keep you too busy to drive drunk and vandalize stuff, but it could also be a place to practice relationship skills you'd use later. Plus, you know, the kids are actually doing it anyway, and have been for years, despite adult opposition.

Strollerderby : STDs

Doc Doesn't Just Support -- He Recommends -- Circumcision

They Say: Today's Kids are Rude, Here's Why

Genius, Kids Aren't Born With It

Surrogate Pregnancy: Who's Next?

Are You Mom, Mommy or Mother?

They Say: Circumcision Tied to Lower Rates of STDs

School Assignment Forces Kids to Buy Birth Control

Mom Buys High School Musical Star's Condoms: Would You?

Teen Pregnancy on the Rise. I Say, Prevention Starts NOW.

Family Planning Services Save Taxpayers Billions of Dollars

Should Mixed Up Embryo's Mom Get to Weigh In on Abortion?

FDA Asked to Approve Gardasil for Boys

AAP: Delayed Vaccines Too Risky for Kids

Vatican to Women: The Pill Pollutes Environment, His Testes

New to Birth Certificate: Does Mom Have Chlamydia?

Mother Blames Cervical Cancer Vaccine For Daughter's Paralysis

Teen Has Cancer and Lives in a Car

Mother Blames Cervical Cancer Vaccine For Daughter's Paralysis

New Abortion-Opposition Strategy to Cripple Planned Parenthood

Caseworker Helps 13-Year-Old Obtain Contraception

Down with “The Herp”: 1 in 4 New Yorkers Has Herpes

Estrogen Cream: A “Natural Condom”

Birds, Bees, and STDs

Pre-eclampsia Linked With Herpes

States Turn Down Abstinence-Only Sex Ed Funds In Favor of Teaching, You Know, Actual Sex Ed

Horn-dog Teens and 40-Year-Old Virgins Have Big Problems