CHILDREN will soon be circumcised at birth under a national programme to achieve maximum results of the medical procedure, senior health officials have said. Aids and TB Unit director in the Ministry of Health and Child Welfare Dr Owen Mugurungi said Government was planning to start neonatal circumcision as soon as possible.
"We hope between 2013 and 2014 we would start neonatal circumcisions at a national scale," he said. "It is actually more sustainable than adult circumcisions."
Dr Mugurungi said some children were already covered under Government's catch up phase targeting children and adults between the ages of 13 and 29 years.
He said for every 200 000 babies circumcised, about 1 500 new infections are averted.
National male circumcision co-ordinator Mr Xaba Sinokuthemba said they submitted a device used to do neonatal circumcisions for approval to the Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe.
"There is no device that has been approved to work here in Zimbabwe and we have actually taken a device that is currently used in Botswana," he said. "This is the device that we have sent to MCAZ for approval and hopefully, very soon neonatal circumcisions will begin."
Government intends to circumcise one million men between 2013 and 2015. The turnout has been very low in the previous years with only 85 000 circumcised since the inception of the programme. Chances of a man acquiring HIV from an infected partner if circumcised are less than 60 percent.
Comments Post a comment
Male circumcision is nothing but penile-reduction surgery that permanently reduces the sexual sensation/function of men. Circumcised men suffer from erectile dysfunction 4.5 times more often than do genitally intact men. Circumcision of defenceless minors is a human rights’ abuse. http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/ http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/
Zimbabwean men are *more* likely to have HIV if they've been circumcised:
12.5% of intact Zimbabwean men have HIV 14.6% of circumcised Malawian men have HIV
(figures from measuredhs dot com)
Other countries where circumcised men are *more* likely to be HIV+ include Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland. That's at least seven African countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised, and yet they're promoting circumcision to prevent HIV. What will it take to stop this madness?
Many professionals have criticized the studies claiming that circumcision reduces HIV transmission. They have various flaws. The absolute rate of HIV transmission reduction is only 1.3%, not the claimed 60%. Authorities that cite the studies have other agendas including political and financial. Research shows that circumcision causes physical, sexual, and psychological harm. This harm is ignored by circumcision advocates. Other methods to prevent HIV transmission (e.g., condoms and sterilizing medical instruments) are much more effective, much cheaper, and much less invasive. Please see http://www.circumcision.org/hiv.htm for more information and links to literature.
Studies show that circumcision causes significant pain and trauma, behavioral and neurological changes in infants, potential parental stress from persistent crying (colic) of infants, disrupted bonding between parent and child, and risk of surgical complications. Other consequences of circumcision include loss of a natural, healthy, functioning body part, reduced sexual pleasure, potential psychological problems, and unknown negative effects that have not been studied.
Some circumcised men resent that they are circumcised. Sexual anxieties, reduced emotional expression, low self-esteem, avoidance of intimacy, and depression are also reported. Some doctors refuse to perform circumcisions because of ethical reasons. Relying on presumed authorities (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics or doctors who echo AAP views) is not sufficient because of personal, religious, financial, and political conflicts of interest.
Men aren't falling for the circumcision lies so the government is preying upon helpless children who can't defend themselves.
Will parents have the right to say "no" under this proposed national programme of neonatal circumcision? Will signed proxy informed consent be required, or will a baby boy be circumcised by default?
The scheme sounds fishy. It flies directly in the face of the global trend toward recognising a right to an intact body. Infants do not have sex, and do not therefore benefit from circumcision. In fact, it interferes with proper anatomical development. If a young man decides that circumcision may benefit him against diseases, however misguided that belief may be, he can willingly elect the surgery with full knowledge of the consequences.
Nevertheless, it sounds as if parents will be pressured or even coerced into having their sons genitally altered through unnecessary surgery.
See All Comments