Why can(?) anal sex kill

First posted Saturday, March 3, 2007 on www.AskDrD.com

An "authoritative" website, capable of inducing a mental image, claims" "...It’s important to remember that HIV can be transmitted through anal sex, especially anal intercourse.

In fact, the risk of HIV transmission is greater than it is in vaginal intercourse because the lining of the rectum tears more easily than the vagina. The resulting skin breaks and bleeding increase the possibility of the transmission of bodily fluids containing the virus that causes AIDS.

Such a conclusion can be reached only by a militantly ignorant author.

Review of the foundational (written by yours truly in 1996), and current literature on the subject begs to disagree.

My, then revolutionary, theories of 13 years ago were noticed, (after years of ridiculing) and acknowledged by the only organization that really counts:
"... In fact, unprotected (without a condom) anal sex (intercourse) is considered to be very risky behavior.

It is possible for either sex partner to become infected with HIV during anal sex. HIV can be found in the blood, semen, pre-seminal fluid, or vaginal fluid of a person infected with the virus.

In general, the person receiving the semen is at greater risk of getting HIV because the lining of the rectum is thin and may allow the virus to enter the body during anal sex.

However, a person who inserts his penis into an infected partner also is at risk because HIV can enter through the urethra (the opening at the tip of the penis) or through small cuts, abrasions, or open sores on the penis..."

But some advice never changes, whether practiced or not:

"...If people choose to have anal sex, they should use a latex condom. Most of the time, condoms work well.

However, condoms are more likely to break during anal sex than during vaginal sex.

Thus, even with a condom, anal sex can be risky.

A person should use generous amounts of water-based lubricant in addition to the condom to reduce the chances of the condom breaking..."

The only practical way not to get infected during sex, is to avoid having it all together.

Be Well!

My sincere thanks to the Editorial and Publishing leadership of the US Pharmacist Journal for their foresight in March of 1996 (eleven years ago!) to take on an unpopular, but an important issue; and to Birdie for being my creative inspiration.

***This article is to be used for education and general discussion purposes only. It does not constitute medical opinion and should not be used for or relied upon as medical advice. Publication of this article does not create physician-patient relationship between the reader and the author. Dr.Dorodny assumes no responsibility and/or liability for any and all actions and/or inactions by any person(s) as a result of this article. The article does not contain comprehensive description of the subject issues discussed. It is based on present medical knowledge which is subject to change and is unclear in numerous respects. The issued discussed in this article are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The issues discussed can not be resolved without specific analysis of the specific circumstances of each person. The readers should consult with their individual health care/wellness professional to resolve their individual situation.

Shame on John Edwards...

...for shamelessly exploiting the unfortunate progression of his wife's cancer. Her previous bouts of cancer did not stop Mr. Edwards from campaigning in 2004 when his wife was receiving chemotherapy. Her psychological scars of abandonment are probably still healing.

Shame on Mr. Edwards for using his wife's now fatal condition to "breed new life" into his losing candidacy for President

Fortunately, during my 32 years of carING for patients with cancer and other terminal diseases (with and without social stigma attached) I only came across one patient, and one next of kin that were actively publicizing and benefiting from their terminal diseases.

Both individuals were illegally abandoned by their "mangled care" insurance companies, and were doing so to collect funds for life-prolonging treatments.

Fortunately for Mrs. Edwards, she appears to be able to afford the best care available in this country without participating in a public debate and discussion of her most sacred possession: her life--a "living monument" to her husband's ambitions, despite his floundering campaign.

Shame oh her physicians for their willing participation in Mrs. Edwards' joint CNN-FOX disease management circus, and for possible HIPAA violations.

Mr. Edwards' time "invested" in press releases, news conferences, TV appearances, etc might have had a "higher return" should he engage in private carING for his wife.

I wonder if Mr. Edwards can ride the "sympathy wave" long enough to make a difference?

We gripe, you decide.

Be Well!