30 March 2008
After the ministry of health getting convinced that male circumcision would reduce the HIV/Aids prevalence, Government is formulating a policy in which males from the age of 15 to 49years would undergo circumcision. We asked the public for their take on the issue.
Mike Tumwesigye (Transport officer Super FM)
I support circumcision and I think it will work, not only for HIV/Aids but also for other diseases like syphilis and gonorrhea. On the other hand, I also have some doubts because I see many muslims dying of Aids yet they are circumcised.
Samuel Wagema (IT Specialist)
In my opinion, I think it's quite contradicting, especially coming from medical people. These same people tell us that Aids has no cure and that in case you have sex without a condom you will acquire it. And before I'm through with that assignment, you're again telling me to circumcise. I'm very sure this is not a solution and people won't accept this easily because not everyone wants to be circumcised.
Hamisi Mugoya (MTN Airtime dealer)
I welcome circumcision because I'm a Muslim and I believe it's healthy. But I still don't think this will work for the government. Are they going to force it on the masses like the taxation policy or is it going to be conducted in a polite way?
Robert Kimbugwe (Catering Services)
Personally I don't support this circumcision policy they are intending to implement. I'm of the view that people should remain faithful and use condoms as the anti- Aids campaign has been. The policy of circumcision will encourage Ugandans to have live sex because of the belief that there is a low risk of catching Aids once you are circumcised.
Amina Nangozi (Shop Attendant)
This is a good idea and indeed they had taken long to implement it. Our men are going to be clean and healthy. I call upon men to accept it because it's not only going to help them reduce Aids but they will also be more hygienic.
George Bukenya (Hotelier)
I have no problem with circumcision because it's for our personal good. However, I think it would be wonderful if they carried it out free of charge in government hospitals. This will make their work easy but if they tell Ugandans to pay to have their skins chopped, not even a one year old will endure the pain.
Shawn Makumoi (Videographer)
Scientifically it's okay and I applaud the ministry for the move. I think they should not lose hope and if possible let government make it a law, like in Israel where male children are circumcised at birth. This I'm sure will work out very well and it will reduce the level of diseases in men.
Sharon Komuhangi (Socialworker)
To some extent, this move is very good and will work out very well for the men because their health will improve in terms of contracting germs. However I'm not well versed with how the health ministry is going to carry it out. Will every Ugandan male be forced to get circumcised?
Gorretti Nanyanzi (Business woman)
There is nothing wrong with that policy. However, I would say that let them be ready to care for the men and if possible let the practice be free so that every Ugandan between that proposed age of 15 and 49 years gets an opportunity to be circumcised.
Read comments. Write your own.
Copyright © 2008 The Monitor. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
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?
Joshua Amos has claimed, without producing one scrap of evidence, that there is a "gay dominated group of anti-circumcision activists." What humbug! There is evidence that some people who push circumcision are sexually involved in the procedure . There is considerable evidence of forced circumcisions in Africa and elsewhere . Unlike Joshua Amos's fantasy about homosexuals, forced circumcision is a real problem that needs to be dealt with. And this applies whether a person is for circumcision or against it.
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?
As far as circumcision for AIDS prevention goes, the US has a very high rate of AIDS transmission and a very high rate of circumcision. The vast majority of HIV+ individuals in the US are circumcized. Obviously, circumcision in the US has not reduced or prevented the spread of HIV.
HIV is caused by a virus, not by a foreskin. A foreskin is not a birth defect.
Circumcision of females is mutilation. Circumcision of males is also mutilation.
Circumcision destroys most penile sensitivity and can cause sexual problems throughout life, increasing as penile sensitivity decreases through keratinization of the glans, and callousing because the glans was intended by nature to be covered by foreskin.
If genital mutilation didn't work in the US for the spread of HIV, why would it work in Africa?
Men in the Ugandan trial who were NOT circumcised got less HIV than men in the Kenyan trial who WERE circumcised. Clearly you were doing something right in Uganda already - probably the "Zero Grazing" campaign, which targets the biggest risks of HIV transmission, multiple partners (and uncovered sex). If money and energy is diverted away from that to circumcision, your HIV rate will go UP.
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.
We wouldn't investigate cutting off women's labia to protect against HIV, so why are researchers cutting off men's foreskins? There is strong evidence that female circumcision does in fact protect against HIV, but no-one's promoting that, and quite rightly.
Circumcised men are less likely to use condoms, and more likely to transmit HIV if they already have it, so this whole thing will cost lives, not save them. If circ worked so well against HIV, then why does the USA have a higher rate of HIV than any of the 27 European Union countries (where they don't circ)?