包皮切割缝合器、商环及传统包皮环切术的临床疗效比较

目的:比较包皮切割缝合器与商环及传统包皮环切术治疗包皮过长或包茎的手术疗效及安全性。方法:将240例包皮过长或包茎患者随机分为传统包皮环切术组、商环组及包皮切割缝合器组(PCSD)。对比分析三组手术时间、出血量、术中疼痛评分、术后疼痛评分、切口愈合时间、感染、切口裂开、术后水肿、术后出血等情况。结果:在手术时间、术中疼痛评分、术后疼痛评分、切口愈合时间、感染、切口裂开、术后水肿方面,PCSD组都明显优于传统包皮环切术组及商环组(P0.05);PCSD组术中出血量明显少于传统包皮环切术组(P0.05),而与商环组比较未见明显差别;在术后出血方面,三组比较未见明显的差异。结论:PCSD可以明显缩短包皮过长或包茎的手术时间,降低术中、术后疼痛,减少术后并发症。     

The Enhancement of Children versus Circumcision: A Case of Double Moral Standards?

The application of enhancement technologies to children and non‐medical infant male circumcision are both topics that enjoy the continuous attention of bioethical research but are usually discussed in isolation from each other. Yet one can show that three major arguments used by opponents of the enhancement of children are also applicable to circumcision. These arguments are based on the insecurity of these procedures, the child's right to an open future, and human nature as a foundation of human dignity. People who reject the enhancement of children because of these arguments but accept circumcision hold mutually inconsistent moral convictions or apply double moral standards to these cases. This is particularly important when legislative systems treat the enhancement of children and circumcision in a considerably different manner, which is true for many contemporary legislative systems. At least three strategies can be adopted in order to avoid such inconsistencies, two of which, however, fail for various reasons. According to a third, more promising strategy, circumcision should be subsumed under human enhancement and treated like other enhancement technologies. This strategy justifies restrictions on, but not the prohibition of circumcision. Furthermore, proponents of circumcision should be prepared for future technologies that provide similar benefits as circumcision but are not as contentious as this intervention, so that, in the future, circumcision could become more and more unacceptable.     

超声引导下真空辅助旋切手术治疗乳腺良性叶状肿瘤的疗效及术后局部复发的影响因素分析

摘要 目的：探讨超声引导下真空辅助旋切手术（VAE）治疗乳腺良性叶状肿瘤的疗效及术后局部复发的影响因素。方法：选取我院于2016年1月~2019年7月期间收治的乳腺良性叶状肿瘤患者100例,根据手术方式的不同分为A组（n=60,开放手术）,B组（n=40,超声引导下VAE）。对比两组术中出血量、手术时间、伤口长度、住院时间、切口愈合时间、并发症发生率以及术后局部复发率。采用单因素及多因素Logistic回归分析术后局部复发的影响因素。结果：B组术中出血量少于A组,手术时间、伤口长度、住院时间、切口愈合时间均短于A组（P<0.05）。B组并发症发生率低于A组（P<0.05）。两组术后局部复发率对比无差异（P>0.05）。单因素分析结果显示,术后局部复发与肿瘤直径、同侧乳房纤维腺瘤史、核分裂有关（P<0.05）。多因素Logistic回归分析结果显示,肿瘤直径≥25 mm是乳腺良性叶状肿瘤患者术后局部复发的危险因素（P<0.05）。结论：与开放手术治疗相比,超声引导下VAE治疗乳腺良性叶状肿瘤可有效改善患者围术期指标,减少并发症发生率,同时乳腺良性叶状肿瘤患者术后局部复发与肿瘤直径密切相关。     

To Cut or Not to Cut: A Modeling Approach for Assessing the Role of Male Circumcision in HIV Control

A recent randomized controlled trial shows a significant reduction in women-to-men transmission of HIV due to male circumcision. Such development calls for a rigorous mathematical study to ascertain the full impact of male circumcision in reducing HIV burden, especially in resource-poor nations where access to anti-retroviral drugs is limited. First of all, this paper presents a compartmental model for the transmission dynamics of HIV in a community where male circumcision is practiced. In addition to having a disease-free equilibrium, which is locally-asymptotically stable whenever a certain epidemiological threshold is less than unity, the model exhibits the phenomenon of backward bifurcation, where the disease-free equilibrium coexists with a stable endemic equilibrium when the threshold is less than unity. The implication of this result is that HIV may persist in the population even when the reproduction threshold is less than unity. Using partial data from South Africa, the study shows that male circumcision at 60% efficacy level can prevent up to 220,000 cases and 8,200 deaths in the country within a year. Further, it is shown that male circumcision can significantly reduce, but not eliminate, HIV burden in a community. However, disease elimination is feasible if male circumcision is combined with other interventions such as ARVs and condom use. It is shown that the combined use of male circumcision and ARVs is more effective in reducing disease burden than the combined use of male circumcision and condoms for a moderate condom compliance rate.     

From Health to Human Rights: Female Genital Cutting and the Politics of Intervention

ABSTRACT  The international campaign to eliminate female genital cutting (FGC) has, since the early 1990s, actively attempted to divorce itself from a health framework, adopting instead a human rights framework to justify intervention. Several key questions emerge regarding the prominent placement of FGC in the international human rights movement: What are the ramifications of framing FGC as a human rights violation? What actions are mandated by a human rights approach? What perils and pitfalls potentially arise from the adoption of a rights-based framework, and how might they be avoided? In exploring these questions it becomes clear that, although a human rights approach is promising, careful deliberation is required to develop action strategies that offer both protection and respect for the culture and autonomy of those women and families concerned.     

Reconciling female genital circumcision with universal human rights

One of the most challenging issues in cross‐cultural bioethics concerns the long‐standing socio‐cultural practice of female genital circumcision (FGC), which is prevalent in many African countries and the Middle East as well as in some Asian and Western countries. It is commonly assumed that FGC, in all its versions, constitutes a gross violation of the universal human rights of health, physical integrity, and individual autonomy and hence should be abolished. This article, however, suggests a mediating approach according to which one form of FGC, the removal of the clitoris foreskin, can be made compatible with the high demands of universal human rights. The argument presupposes the idea that human rights are not absolutist by nature but can be framed in a meaningful, culturally sensitive way. It proposes important limiting conditions that must be met for the practice of FGC to be considered in accordance with the human rights agenda.     

German law on circumcision and its debate: How an ethical and legal issue turned political

The article aims to illuminate the recent debate in Germany about the legitimacy of circumcision for religious reasons. The aim is both to evaluate the new German law allowing religious circumcision, and to outline the resulting conflict between the surrounding ethical and legal issues. We first elucidate the diversity of legal and medical views on religious circumcision in Germany. Next we examine to what extent invasive and irreversible physical interventions on infant boys unable to given their consent should be carried out for non‐medical reasons. To this end, the potential benefits and harms of circumcision for non‐medical reasons are compared. We argue that circumcision does not provide any benefits for the ‘child as a child’ and poses only risks to boys. We then set out to clarify and analyse political (rather than ethical) justifications of the new circumcision law. We demonstrate through this analysis how the circumcision debate in Germany has been transformed from a legal and ethical problem into a political issue, due at least in part to Germany's unique historical context. Although such a particular political sensibility is entirely comprehensible, it raises particular problems when it comes to framing and responding to medical ethical issues – as in the case of religious circumcision.     

Identifying harms

Moral disagreements often revolve around the issue of harm to others. Identifying harms, however, is a contested enterprise. This paper provides a conceptual toolbox for identifying harms, and so possible wrongdoing, by drawing several distinctions. First, I distinguish between four modes of human vulnerability, forming four ways in which one can be in a harmed state. Second, I argue for the intrinsic disvalue of harm and so distinguish the presence of harm from the fact that it is instrumental to or constitutive of a valued act, practice or way of life. Finally, I distinguish between harm and wrongdoing, arguing that while harm is a normative concept requiring justification, not all harmed states are automatically unjustified. The advantage of this view is that it refocuses the moral debate on the normative issues involved while establishing a common basis to which both sides can agree: the presence of harm to others.     

Response to Vogelstein: How the 2012 AAP Task Force on circumcision went wrong

Vogelstein cautions medical organizations against jumping into the fray of controversial issues, yet proffers the 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics' Task Force policy position on infant male circumcision as ‘an appropriate use of position‐statements.’ Only a scratch below the surface of this policy statement uncovers the Task Force's failure to consider Vogelstein's many caveats. The Task Force supported the cultural practice by putting undeserved emphasis on questionable scientific data, while ignoring or underplaying the importance of valid contrary scientific data. Without any effort to quantitatively assess the risk/benefit balance, the Task Force concluded the benefits of circumcision outweighed the risks, while acknowledging that the incidence of risks was unknown. This Task Force differed from other Academy policy‐forming panels by ignoring the Academy's standard quality measures and by not appointing members with extensive research experience, extensive publications, or recognized expertise directly related to this topic. Despite nearly 100 publications available at the time addressing the substantial ethical issues associated with infant male circumcision, the Task Force chose to ignore the ethical controversy. They merely stated, with minimal justification, the opinion of one of the Task Force members that the practice of infant male circumcision is morally permissible. The release of the report has fostered an explosion of academic discussion on the ethics of infant male circumcision with a number of national medical organizations now decrying the practice as a human rights violation.