Letters published in Canadian Family Physician, Vol. 49, 1591-92, December 2003, are critical of the Circumcision and cervical cancer article.
The first letter asserts that
A vaccine for HPV has been tested and found to be effective. It is probable that, by the time infants born today reach maturity, a vaccine will be available to prevent cervical cancer.
In view of the above, neonatal circumcision cannot be recommended to prevent cervical cancer. Human papillomavirus causes cervical cancer; the foreskin does not. Safer sex, not circumcision, prevents the spread of HPV.
The second letter states:
Evidence linking the foreskin to sexually transmitted infections and cervical cancer is contradictory. But even if the evidence were conclusive, it would still not constitute a justification for circumcising baby boys. Because infants are not sexually active, they should not be required to bear the burden of preventing sexually transmitted infections. Sexually transmitted diseases will be prevented by practising safer sex, not by circumcising infants. If circumcision is touted as a prophylactic, it could confer a false sense of security and encourage high-risk sexual behaviour.
The third letter states:
In assessing the link between male circumcision and cervical cancer in female partners, Dr Rivet ignores the fact that, morphologically, the prepuce is highly specialized tissue2 and might be worthy of preservation in itself.