Washington Post Examines Use Of Circumcision In Swaziland To Prevent HIV Transmission
Main Category: Men's healthArticle Date: 04 Jan 2006 - 0:00 PDT
The Washington Post on Dec. 26, 2005, examined the "dramatic and swift" shift in attitudes toward circumcision in Swaziland, which has one of the world's lowest rates of the practice and one of the highest HIV prevalence rates. Although circumcision was "once widely viewed as unmanly," it is making a "sudden comeback" in the country since the publication of a South African study that finds the practice could reduce the risk of contracting HIV (Timberg, Washington Post, 12/26/05). According to the study, which was published in the November 2005 issue of PLoS Medicine, male circumcision might reduce the risk of men contracting HIV through sexual intercourse with women by about 60% (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 11/28/05). Hundreds of Swazi men have been circumcised in recent months, and hospitals that once rarely performed the procedure are circumcising 10 to 15 patients weekly and keeping two-month waiting lists, according to the Post. Circumcision advocates, UNICEF Swaziland representative Alan Brody, and USAID researcher and technical adviser Daniel Halperin have "aggressively pushed news" of the study by incorporating messages about the protective effects of circumcision into public education campaigns and meeting with Swazi physicians to discuss the research, the Post reports. In addition, Swazi legislator Marwick Khumalo advocates the practice in "Swazi terms" by telling parents that their paternal bloodline depends on protecting their sons from HIV. However, some circumcision advocates say that newly circumcised men might believe that they are "totally protected" from HIV and engage in high-risk sexual behavior, when in fact they are more vulnerable to HIV in the weeks after circumcision when the virus can enter the wound before it heals, the Post reports.
Meeting Demand
Some Swazi health care providers say that if the country's health system does not keep pace with the demand for circumcision, the surgery might increasingly be performed in "unhygienic, ritual settings or hastily established operating rooms," the Post reports. The country's health care system already is "overwhelmed" with providing HIV/AIDS care, distributing antiretroviral drugs and retaining its "short supply" of health care workers. To address the issue, Brody said that mobile military hospitals should be established in villages to provide circumcision at no cost to males between the ages of 10 and 24. "This is a crisis," Brody said, adding, "The science is in place to say, 'Let's move forward,' at least in Swaziland and also in most of Southern Africa. Let's not delay." However, the largest international supporters of HIV/AIDS prevention have "treated the results cautiously" and are waiting for results from similar studies in Uganda and Kenya before deciding whether to offer circumcision more widely in countries with high rates of HIV, the Post reports (Washington Post, 12/26/05).
"Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.
Visit our men's health section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/35692.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/35692.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (3)
Poverty, ignorance, not foreskins, promotes HIV transmission
posted by David Wilton on 4 Jan 2006 at 3:14 pmSwaziland men will no doubt be once again confounded when several years hence they remain awash in HIV. It is ignorance, poverty, superstition and cultural custom that keeps them so. Not the presence of a foreskin. Death and disability will be ever present while their foreskins will not be. A poorly done study, rife with ethical problems, rejected by The Lancet, and published in a questionable online journal without peer review is a poor basis for public health policy. Sub-saharan Africa continues the path of disintegration that only development can right. And certain elements in the West's medical community have made it worse with this desperate attempt at gaining a foothold in the HIV scientific community.
Excuses
posted by Jake Waskett on 10 Mar 2006 at 1:21 pmContrary to Wilton's assertions, Dr Auvert's study was by no means poorly done. The Lancet rejected it due to an ethical disagreement over whether it should be mandatory for men to learn their HIV status.
Wilton asserts that it was published without peer review. Clearly, therefore, he did not read the accompanying editorial, which commented that 'in the words of one of the study's peer reviewers, this first RCT may come to be regarded as “a landmark paper” in HIV prevention.'
More than 40 observational studies have shown a protective effect of circumcision. A randomised controlled trial - the gold standard of medical research - confirms it. Yet people continue to die while anti-circumcision activists make ill-informed excuses. Why?
come on
posted by meerkat on 14 Nov 2010 at 8:39 pmCircumcision should not be used as the only solution, and this should not be done to any infant. Only grown men should be circumcised at their own will. As inappropriate as it might seem in the United States, a man, needs to be present in these male orphans lives, and a man, NOT A WOMAN needs teach these little boys how to clean themselves under their foreskins properly. When I was in Africa, I taught three boys how to pull their skins back and clean their equipment (without touching them of course), and I told them that they need to do this every time they bathe.
If I did this with boys in a US group home, I probably would have been arrested and accused of ruining their lives, but given the AIDS situation in Africa, I think I did just the opposite. Removal of the foreskin doesn't make the AIDS virus less likely to enter the penis during intercourse, what happens is that if the penis isn't cleaned soon afterwards, the virus builds up under the foreskin even when it doesn't go directly into the penis. If it builds up too long, it will begin to enter the body and infect the person. Bottom line is, cutting skin is not the answer.
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.




