Kampala — THE government is formulating a national policy on male circumcision to reduce HIV infections.
"We are conducting an assessment of medical male circumcision in the districts of Kampala, Kumi, Gulu and Rukungiri. The results will inform us on how prepared our health sector and the general public are for the new policy.
"The Ministry of health is convinced that male circumcision will reduce HIV/AIDS prevalence, especially among people aged 15 to 49 years," said Dr. Alex Opio, the assistant commissioner of National Disease control. He was addressing a public debate on medical male circumcision on Tuesday in Kampala.
"The ministry is looking at issues like public involvement, access, cultural and religious differences," said Opio, adding that the policy would be part of a national strategy but not an independent programme.
"We should make the procedure available at lower levels through empowering other medical personnel like midwives and nurses if we are to meet the increasing demand for medical male circumcision."
"In Uganda, about 24% of males aged between 15 and 24 are circumcised but there is need to increase that figure. This group stands a high risk of HIV/AIDS infection because it is starting to engage in sex," said Prof. George Kirya, the head of the Uganda Health Service Commission.
Kirya said about 130,000 Ugandans get infected with HIV/AIDS every year. "About 6% of Uganda's population is infected with HIV. The largest number of infections are sex-related," he added.
A medical research carried out between 2005 and 2007 in Uganda, Kenya and South Africa indicated that circumcision reduced the chances of contracting HIV in men by 60%. Based on the findings, the World Health Organisation and the UN Programme on HIV/AIDS in 2007 recognised male circumcision as an additional strategy to prevent HIV.
Circumcision reduces urinary tract infections, inflammation, ulceration of the male organs and penile cancer. It also reduces the risk of cervical cancer among women who have sex with circumcised men.
Comments Post a comment
The claims that "Circumcision reduces urinary tract infections, inflammation, ulceration of the male organs and penile cancer" and "also reduces the risk of cervical cancer among women who have sex with circumcised men" are all false or too weak to justify the operation. The claim that circumcision prevents HIV is also shaky. See www.circumstitions.com for details. For over a century, circumcision has been a "cure" looking for a disease - or rather, circumcised men have been looking for reasons to justify their loss. The big risk now is that circumcised men will think they are protected and take more risks than before. Nothing could be more dangerous.
In Rwanda, 3.8% of circumcised men have HIV, compared to 2.1% of intact men, so what the heck do they think they're doing? That's nearly twice as many. I'm not (of course) saying circumcision promotes HIV transmission (though it might) but clearly something else is going on. These figures are from the 2005 Demographic and Health Survey ( http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR183/15Chapter15.pdf , p10 and p15).
Circumcision can only possibly help men who have unsafe sex with HIV+ partners, so why this bizarre obsession with genital surgery when we know that ABC works better than circumcision ever could? (ABC=Abstinence, Being Faithful, Condoms). The two continents with the highest rates of AIDS are the same two continents with the highest rates of male circumcision. Something is very wrong here. These people aren't interesting in fighting HIV, but in promoting circumcision, and their actions will cost lives.
When the matter of male circumcision for HIV is raised anywhere on the net the first responses will be from a gay dominated group of anti-circumcision activists. Already they have posted a response here. WHO and UNAIDS in a joint statement found: "The research evidence that male circumcision is efficacious in reducing sexual transmission of HIV from women to men is compelling. The partial protective effect of male circumcision is remarkably consistent across the observational studies (ecological, cross-sectional and cohort) and the three randomized controlled trials conducted in diverse settings. The three randomised controlled trials showed that male circumcision performed by well-trained medical professionals was safe and reduced the risk of acquiring HIV infection by approximately 60%. The efficacy of male circumcision in reducing female to male transmission of HIV has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is an important landmark in the history of HIV prevention." And as a result of the conclusions the WHO and UNAIDS recommended as follows: "Male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention. And. Promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men." So who are we to believe? The WHO and UNAIDS or some gay dominated group with psychosexual agenda?
The facts are the facts. That a person who is stating them might happen to be gay is irrelevant. There is one thing that studies seem to keep evading, and that is the obvious contradiction between the recent "studies" performed by self-interested purveyors of a cure looking for a disease, and reality; HIV numbers are higher in the US, a primarily circumcised population, than in other countries in Europe who's primary male population have their normal intact organs. The "scientists" who are promoting circumcision to prevent HIV need to explain how a "solution" which has not worked in the US will be effective in Africa. The fact is that when it comes to HIV prevention, nothing surpasses the condom. This campaign to circumcise every male in Africa is only going to end in tragedy, as funds are going to be focused on an expensive, ineffective cosmetic procedure, instead of a cheaper, and proven method of condoms. Promoting a solution that has been proven NOT to work in the mass experiment of the US, WHO and UNAIDS must be on CRACK.
I hope the policy will to be to stop the barbaric and superstitious practice of circumcision. No medial association anywhere in the world advocates circumcision and for good reason. It's a useless mutilation of infant boys.
See All Comments