Maputo — The former President of Botswana, Festus Mogae, recommended that African leaders consider circumcision as a way of reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Mogae is heading a delegation from "Champions for an HIV-Free Generation", an organisation set up by former African heads of state and other prominent figures, which is on a tour of southern Africa.
Speaking at a Maputo press conference, after meeting with members of the Mozambican government and the leadership of the National AIDS Council (CNCS), Mogae said "we must explain that circumcision gives people greater possibilities of not being infected by HIV. This does not mean that people become immune to the virus and that should be made clear".
He also urged governments "to teach their citizens not to have multiple sexual partners because this is one of the practices that leads to the spread of HIV/AIDS".
Mogae added that in his meeting with Mozambican ministers questions concerned with financing the struggle against AIDS were discussed. He had no doubt that improvements were needed in funding this battle.
Mogae's position on circumcision is controversial, and his enthusiasm for the practice is not shared by the Mozambican Health Ministry. Health Minister Ivo Garrido told reporters that circumcisions "is not the solution for AIDS in Mozambique", although there are studies showing that circumcised men have a reduced risk of catching HIV or other sexually transmitted infections.
Garrido said that, as part of the government's strategy for accelerating the prevention of HIV/AIDS, the Health Ministry will establish conditions so that any man who wants to be circumcised can have the operation done in safety.
The cultural and religious diversity of Mozambique means that rates of circumcision are higher in some parts of the country than in others, but there are no detailed statistics available. The Health Ministry is preparing a study to assess the real situation.
"Circumcision is a practice advocated by some religions, such as Islam", said Garrido. "There are groups which, because of their traditions, advise circumcision. But there are other groups who don't accept this practice".
The claim that circumcision cuts rates of HIV infection is by no means universally accepted. First, circumcision would only be a safe option if done under sterile conditions in a health unit. Traditional circumcision, using unsterilised blades, is more likely to spread HIV than prevent it. Secondly, the claim that circumcision prevents infection is all too likely to persuade circumcised men that they do not need to use condoms.
There are also ethical issues involved. Circumcision is a form of mutilation, albeit a minor one, and no doctor should perform it without the informed consent of the patient.
In addition to Mogae, the "Champions for an HIV-Free Generation" include the former presidents of Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia, Joaquim Chissano, Benjamin Mkapa, and Kenneth Kaunda and South African Anglican archbishop, Desmond Tutu.
Comments 1 to 3 of 3 Post a comment
Mogae is not thinking clearly.
Most of the dead US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth. Circumcision clearly does not prevent HIV transmission. It certainly doesn't protect women.
According to a study published in the BJU, condoms are 95 times as effective at thwarting HIV, EVEN IF the 3 large African Circ/HIV trials were legit. Those trials were not double-blinded nor placebo controlled, which is striking considering the people who conducted them have been zealously promoting circumcision for years.
Foreskin feels REALLY good. HIS body HIS decision.
If circumcision is so effective, then why are there six African countries where the circumcised men in those countries are more likely to be HIV+ than the intact men in those countries?
HIV doesnt infect people randomly. 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 studies which allegedly show a reduction in HIV among circumcised men are highly questionable. Not one of them was finished, despite the protective affect appearing to decline well below the oft-reported 65%, and several of the subjects disappeared. The fact that one study described circumcision as equivalent to a vaccine of high efficacy seems to show clear bias. They appear to have been seeking a certain result. One has to wonder how many of the people promoting circumcision in Africa are themselves circumcised. Many of them have been promoting circumcision for years for a variety of different reasons. Other epidemiological studies have shown no correlation between HIV and circumcision, but rather with the numbers of sex workers, or the prevalence of dry sex.
The two continents with the highest rates of AIDS are the same two continents with the highest rates of male circumcision. Rwanda has almost double the rate of HIV in circumcised men than intact men, yet theyve just started a nationwide circumcision campaign. Other countries where circumcised men are *more* likely to be HIV+ are Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, and Tanzania. Something is very wrong here. These people arent interested in fighting HIV, but in promoting circumcision (or sometimes anything-but-condoms), and their actions will cost lives.
Circumcised male virgins are more likely to be HIV+ than intact male virgins, as the operation sometimes infects men.
The latest news is that circumcised HIV+ men are more likely to transmit the virus to women than intact HIV+ men (even after the healing period is over). Eight additional women appear to have been infected during that study, solely because their husbands were circumcised.
Female circumcision seems to protect against HIV too btw, but we wouldnt investigate cutting off womens labia, and then start promoting that.
Its not like weve tried the things that really do work. In Malawi for instance, only 57% know that condoms protect against HIV/AIDS, and only 68% know that limiting sexual partners protects against HIV/AIDS. There are people who havent even heard of condoms. It just seems really misguided to be hailing male circumcision as the way forward. It would help if some of the aid donors didnt refuse to fund condom education, or work that involves talking to prostitutes. There are African prostitutes that sleep with 20-50 men a day, and some of them say that hardly any of the men use a condom. If anyone really cares about men, women, and children dying in Africa, surely theyd be focussing on education about safe sex rather than surgery that offers limited protection at best, and runs a high risk of risk compensatory behaviour.
Boy there sure will be a lot of pissed off Africans when they learn they've been duped into cutting part of their penises off for no good, effective reason. You still have to wear a condom to prevent infections from sexual contact, so why mutilate males?
Boy there sure will be a lot of angry U.S. guys when they learn part of their penis was cut off when they were just babies for no good reason...
I'm afraid this is a cycle of violence, but I'm heartened to see circumcision rates dropping and more and more guys learning the truth and taking action for the next generation.
The TLC Tugger guy has it right, "His body, his choice!"