Daily Monitor analysis examines history of male circumcision debate

NewsGuard 100/100 Score

In this Daily Monitor analysis, Joseph Matovu, Rhoda Wanyenze and David Serwadda, all lecturers at Makerere University School of Public Health in Kampala, Uganda, respond to two articles related to male circumcision that were published in the Daily Monitor in March. In the analysis, the authors provide a brief overview of the articles -- titled "Circumcision does not reduce HIV spread" and "Circumcision and HIV: are we being fed on half-truths?" -- noting that they present anti-male circumcision perspectives, and write, "In writing this article, we intended to not only respond to these issues but also provide a more elaborate view of male circumcision and its role in HIV prevention based on scientific evidence at hand." The authors recount the history of the male circumcision debate, referencing a number of relevant studies, and discuss the policy implications of this research. They conclude, "[M]ale circumcision is currently promoted as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package rather than as a single magic bullet, as anti-male circumcision crusaders would like to make us believe" (4/12).


http://www.kaiserhealthnews.orgThis article was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Comments

  1. Hugh Intactive Hugh Intactive New Zealand says:

    It's not "anti-circumcision crusaders" who are saying circumcision is being presented as a magic bullet. It's the circumcision crusaders like Matovu et al. who are grossly underestimating men's willingness to believe that circumcision is a magic bullet - or indeed of men anywhere to believe anything that makes it easier for them to have more sex with less trouble. Matovu et al are in turn, far to ready to believe anything in favour of circumcision and disbelieve anything against it. It is not enough to say that 10 out of 18 countries where more of the CIRCUMCISED men have HIV than the non-circumcised is "a false comparison". It is not enough to say that the Uganda study that started to show circumcising men INcreases the risk to women was entirely because the men resumed sex too early. If it is instead because circumcised men's hardened organs make tiny tears in the women's organs that let the virus in, then anyone promoting circumcision will have many deaths to answer for.

    Matovu et al. cite "B J Morris and his colleagues" to answer the critics of circumcision. Are these the same colleagues listed here - http://www.circinfo.net/pdfs/GFW-EN%200712-1.pdf - on a publication of the Gilgal Society? The credibility of the Gilgal Society is now in a spot of bother.

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.
Post a new comment
Post

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions.

You might also like...
New report on HIV drug resistance: Challenges and recommendations