5 ms·

Doctors Perform the First Successful Penis Transplant

38 points by avinassh 12y ago

dang 12y ago
Url changed from http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/13/8208183/penis-transplant-successful-first-time-history#twt34 http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/13/8208183/penis-transplant-s..., which points to this. Submitters: HN prefers original sources. Everyone will appreciate it if you track these down before posting.
- avinassh 12y ago
  I did not know about that and I will do bit of homework next time. Thanks for fixing the link!
curiouslurker 12y ago
By the way this is a serious problem, highlighted on the page below. BE WARNED: VERY GRAPHIC IMAGES: http://ulwaluko.co.za/Photos.html http://ulwaluko.co.za/Photos.html It is good to celebrate cultural traditions but not at this cost!
- Fiahil 12y ago
  This is, indeed, a serious problem. I concur on the warning: this is graphic.
- nate_meurer 12y ago
  Agreed, but FUCK cultural traditions that involve initiation by torture. That's all this is.
reubenmorais 12y ago
> Circumcision reduces a man’s risk of contracting HIV by 60 percent, Skorochod said in an interview. I was surprised by this, so I looked it up: http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/ http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/ > There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence. The CDC reaches a similar conclusion: circumcision lowers the risk of HIV acquisition by heterosexual men, but doesn't change male-to-female transmission of HIV, and studies have found no statistically significant protective association for male-to-male transmission. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/prevention_research_malecircumcision.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/prevention_research_malecircumcis...
- XorNot 12y ago
  The other problem is that the predictor for HIV is risky sexual behavior. Circumcision is not correlated with reduced risky behavior.
  - mattzito 12y ago
    Isn't that the point? People will have risky sexual behavior whether circumcised or not, so if circumcision reduces the likelihood of AIDS transmission in people with risky sexual behavior, it's a net win. EDIT: the downthread comment clarified the parent comment for me. As I said even further downstream, if the study was done naively, where we simply took circumcised vs. uncircumcised people and compared their HIV rates, I would agree 100%. But the original study was taking a population of adult uncircumcised males in africa and circumcising 50% of them randomly, and then tracking their HIV infection rates. That should control for upbringing. From the studies: "In these studies, men who had been randomly assigned to the circumcision group had a 60% (South Africa), 53% (Kenya), and 51% (Uganda) lower incidence of HIV infection compared with men assigned to the wait-list group to be circumcised at the end of the study. In all three studies, a small number of men who had been assigned to be circumcised did not undergo the procedure; likewise, a small number of men assigned to the control groups did undergo circumcision. When the data were reanalyzed to account for these occurrences, men who had been circumcised had a 76% (South Africa), 60% (Kenya), and 55% (Uganda) reduction in risk for HIV infection compared with those who were not circumcised."
    - davidrusu 12y ago
      I think the parent post was inferring the opposite causation, ie, the families that tend to give their children circumcisions tend to be conservative and would probably have a lower hiv infection rate even if they would not have circumcised their children. Under this interpretation, being conservative is the cause of both circumcision and low hiv rates, and circumcision is negatively correlated with hiv rates.
      - mattzito 12y ago
sheensleeves 12y ago
I know reddit / slashdot style jokes are unwelcome here, but I can't resist. The line of billionaires forms here -->
junto 12y ago
Serious question that the article doesn't appear to cover, but where did the transplanted penis come from? Was it a recently deceased donor?
- thefreeman 12y ago
  It was covered. They said that part of the initial problem was convincing family members of deceased organ donors to allow them to use the penis. They were finally able to convince a family by agreeing to construct an artificial penis from left over skin for the deceased donor.

38 points by avinassh 12y ago

dang 12y ago

Url changed from http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/13/8208183/penis-transplant-successful-first-time-history#twt34 http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/13/8208183/penis-transplant-s..., which points to this. Submitters: HN prefers original sources. Everyone will appreciate it if you track these down before posting.

avinassh 12y ago
I did not know about that and I will do bit of homework next time. Thanks for fixing the link!

curiouslurker 12y ago

By the way this is a serious problem, highlighted on the page below. BE WARNED: VERY GRAPHIC IMAGES: http://ulwaluko.co.za/Photos.html http://ulwaluko.co.za/Photos.html It is good to celebrate cultural traditions but not at this cost!

Fiahil 12y ago
This is, indeed, a serious problem. I concur on the warning: this is graphic.
nate_meurer 12y ago
Agreed, but FUCK cultural traditions that involve initiation by torture. That's all this is.

reubenmorais 12y ago

> Circumcision reduces a man’s risk of contracting HIV by 60 percent, Skorochod said in an interview. I was surprised by this, so I looked it up: http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/ http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/ > There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence. The CDC reaches a similar conclusion: circumcision lowers the risk of HIV acquisition by heterosexual men, but doesn't change male-to-female transmission of HIV, and studies have found no statistically significant protective association for male-to-male transmission. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/prevention_research_malecircumcision.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/prevention_research_malecircumcis...

XorNot 12y ago
The other problem is that the predictor for HIV is risky sexual behavior. Circumcision is not correlated with reduced risky behavior.
- mattzito 12y ago
  Isn't that the point? People will have risky sexual behavior whether circumcised or not, so if circumcision reduces the likelihood of AIDS transmission in people with risky sexual behavior, it's a net win. EDIT: the downthread comment clarified the parent comment for me. As I said even further downstream, if the study was done naively, where we simply took circumcised vs. uncircumcised people and compared their HIV rates, I would agree 100%. But the original study was taking a population of adult uncircumcised males in africa and circumcising 50% of them randomly, and then tracking their HIV infection rates. That should control for upbringing. From the studies: "In these studies, men who had been randomly assigned to the circumcision group had a 60% (South Africa), 53% (Kenya), and 51% (Uganda) lower incidence of HIV infection compared with men assigned to the wait-list group to be circumcised at the end of the study. In all three studies, a small number of men who had been assigned to be circumcised did not undergo the procedure; likewise, a small number of men assigned to the control groups did undergo circumcision. When the data were reanalyzed to account for these occurrences, men who had been circumcised had a 76% (South Africa), 60% (Kenya), and 55% (Uganda) reduction in risk for HIV infection compared with those who were not circumcised."
  - davidrusu 12y ago
    I think the parent post was inferring the opposite causation, ie, the families that tend to give their children circumcisions tend to be conservative and would probably have a lower hiv infection rate even if they would not have circumcised their children. Under this interpretation, being conservative is the cause of both circumcision and low hiv rates, and circumcision is negatively correlated with hiv rates.
    - mattzito 12y ago

sheensleeves 12y ago

I know reddit / slashdot style jokes are unwelcome here, but I can't resist. The line of billionaires forms here -->

junto 12y ago

Serious question that the article doesn't appear to cover, but where did the transplanted penis come from? Was it a recently deceased donor?

thefreeman 12y ago
It was covered. They said that part of the initial problem was convincing family members of deceased organ donors to allow them to use the penis. They were finally able to convince a family by agreeing to construct an artificial penis from left over skin for the deceased donor.