THE National Male Circumcision taskforce got a major boost in its strategy to focus circumcision on infants after 92 percent of the parents agreed to the strategy. The research, conducted by the University of Illinois and the Nyanza Reproductive Health Society to assess the acceptability of infant male circumcision, said many parents want their children to be circumcised at certain ages.
Voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) programmes like Kenya's focus on reducing HIV infections by increasing uptake of male circumcision among adult men and adolescents. The study, published in the Paediatrics journal, sampled 627 women and 493 men in Nyanza and found out that Fathers are the primary decision makers on whether to circumcise their infant sons.
The study was conducted from March to October 2010 at five government hospitals focussed on reality of acceptability and decision-making among parents who had accepted or declined the offer of IMC. Mothers were approached individually and asked whether they would like to have their infant sons circumcised. Those who accepted were asked by the researchers for permission to contact their husbands.
The research found out that mothers appeared to belief that circumcised men experience more sexual pleasure, while fathers were more likely to accept IMC if they thought women enjoyed sex more with circumcised men. Mothers also cited protection against HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, penile hygiene and religious reasons.
Fathers gave similar reasons, but many cited penile hygiene as the main reason for accepting IMC. Reasons given against the IMC by mothers were pain, risk of injury or complications, deferring circumcision to an older age, opposition by the father and reluctance to go against cultural tradition.
Fathers cited going against tradition as their main reason against circumcision. Most parents did not oppose male circumcision while 92 percent want their sons to be circumcised at some age. IMC is rarely practised in Eastern and Southern Africa.
Comments Post a comment
There is NO evidence whatsoever that infant circumcison has any effect on the transmission of AIDS. (The studies claiming reduction were carried out on adult volunteers) In 10 out 18 countries for which USAID has figures, more of the circumcised men had HIV than the non-circumcised. In Uganda, a study started to show that circumcising men increases the risk to women, but that was cut short for no good reason before it could be confirmed. This is an attempt by circumcised men to impose their cultural norm on the whole of Africa. Circumcising babies perverts the meaning of "voluntary".
The University of Illinois and the Nyanza Reproductive Health Society sound like two independent bodies, but the Secretary of the Board of the Nyanza Reproductive Health Society is Dr Robert Bailey, who is a Professor at the University of Chicago at Illinois. Prof. Bailey also led the Kenya study that claimed to find circumcising men reduces their risk of contracting HIV. Can you say "one man band"?
It's a neat strategy, to conduct a "push poll" (a well known tactic in politics, a poll with questions loaded to give the answers you want) about parents' willingness to circumcise infants. Then spin the results as if they are good reasons to circumcise infants.
From a USAID report: "There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher." http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf
The South African National Communication Survey on HIV/AIDS, 2009 found that 15% of adults across age groups "believe that circumcised men do not need to use condoms". http://www.info.gov.za/issues/hiv/survey_2009.htm
From the committee of the South African Medical Association Human Rights, Law & Ethics Committee : "the Committee expressed serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information. The Committee reiterated its view that it did not support circumcision to prevent HIV transmission."
The one randomized controlled trial into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised btw: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60998-3/a bstract
ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, and especially Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery seems likely to cost African lives rather than save them.
Flawed African Studies into Male Circumcision and HIV Sexual Transmission
Ref: Boyle GJ, Hill G. Sub-Saharan African randomised clinical trials into male circumcision and HIV transmission: Methodological, ethical and legal concerns. J Law Med 2011;19:316-334.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december112011/circumcision-hiv-rg.php
The Journal of Law and Medicine, has published a new critique of those three randomized clinical trials from Africa that have purported to find that male circumcision reduces female-to-male sexual transmission of HIV by 60 percent. This critique finds numerous flaws in the execution of these studies and shows that the actual (absolute) reduction in HIV transmission was only 1.3 percent, not the claimed 60 percent (relative figure only). The 1.3 percent is not considered to be clinically significant. This is offset by a 61 percent relative increase (6 percent absolute increase) in male-to-female HIV transmission when the male partner is circumcised (Wawer et al., Lancet, 2009). They reported that "Circumcision of HIV-infected men did NOT reduce HIV transmission to female partners...Condom use after male circumcision is essential for HIV prevention" (p. 229). Given this, the African RCTs should not be used in the formulation of public health policy.
Just as female circumcision (genital mutilation) is a despicable atrocity intended to permanently reduce the sexual sensation of women, so too, male circumcision is nothing but penile-sexual reduction surgery (genital mutilation) intended to permanently reduce the sexual sensation/function of men. Circumcision under false pretences (without FULLY INFORMED consent) is a human rights’ violation. Non-therapeutic circumcision of defenceless children is criminal sexual assault and child abuse. http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/ http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/