Showing posts with label USAID. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USAID. Show all posts

Monday, January 23, 2017

KENYA, UGANDA: Men regret being cut, denounce campaign

BlackNews.com
November 30, 2016

Africans Speak Out Against the Mass Circumcision Campaign

by Max Fish
“We respect science honestly, but we do not support what science brings to finish us, to defile our cultures, defile our rights.” — Prince Hillary Maloba

— Since 2008, western public health giants* have been circumcising Africans by the millions to slow the spread of HIV/AIDS. American taxpayers are funding the effort through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). An estimated 12 million men and boys have been circumcised to date. The world has not heard a word from them until now. —
 
Nationwide — The VMMC Experience Project recently sent cameras into Uganda and Kenya to document the realities of the mass circumcision program. Local investigators conducted interviews with 90 affected men and women and found:
1. Africans are told circumcision conveys immunity from HIV. 2. Condom use is at an all-time low, and AIDS is on the rise.
3. The program is killing the very people it is supposed to help.
4. No follow-up post circumcision (cut-and-release approach).
5. Resentment and outrage among Africans.
The “Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision” (VMMC) public health program is the first mass surgical campaign in human history. It targets Africans exclusively, leading some to question whether there are underlying racial motives. For centuries, western stereotypes have held that African men are lascivious or hypersexed, unable to control their sexual urges. Compulsory African-American male circumcision campaigns were proposed as early as the nineteenth century.

Prince Hillary Maloba is a native Kenyan, director of the VMMC Experience Project, and the driving force behind the investigation. “Male circumcision,” he explains, “as a project that has been applied for we [sic] Africans, has failed to reduce HIV the way we were told. Two, we view it as a violation of human rights. How target only one race in the entire world?”

Bishop Cleophas Matete, another native Kenyan, agrees: “I believe the entire process of trying to test it in Africa was wrong from the beginning.”

The mass circumcision campaign was introduced to reduce the incidence of HIV in fourteen sub-Saharan African countries that did not initially practice genital cutting. However, UNAIDS data indicate that the African HIV epidemic has only worsened since 2010—shortly after VMMC was implemented. For the first time since the war on AIDS began, HIV is back on the rise.

The World Health Organization claims that male circumcision curbs female-to-male HIV transmission by up to 60 percent and provides lifelong partial protection against HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Their conclusions derive from a process of contentious surgical experimentation on Africans.

Opponents allege that the targeting of impoverished Africans constitutes a racial and human rights issue. Comparisons are made to the Tuskegee syphilis study. Others argue that the program results in a dangerous false security. The present investigation confirms that men, women, and teens are abandoning condoms out of a belief that they are already protected by circumcision. This in turn increases the spread of HIV.

Prior to the VMMC Experience Project investigation, none have consulted or followed up with the men and women who have been directly affected. Many are living in rural poverty, invisible to the developed world. They have had no platform or voice in the circumcision agenda. Maloba’s investigation is the first to shed light on the African side of the story.

African men and women say the campaign is violating their rights, confusing their cultural identity, and profoundly worsening the AIDS epidemic. They implicate the program in the spike in HIV cases we have seen in recent years. Seven respondents in Maloba’s investigation said that they had acquired HIV because of misinformation around circumcision.
 
“I blame those who told me that if I get circumcised I won’t get HIV,” said one respondent, “and I got HIV already!”

Others mourned the loss of friends, brothers, relatives, and neighbors to AIDS following the procedure they believed would protect them.

“These people are dying of HIV due to ignorance,” a respondent explained.

“If we don’t stop this thing,” Maloba warns, “this community will not have a generation that will take care of the old people.”

Instead of mass circumcision, Africans want funding for sustainable medical facilities, anti-retroviral medications (ARVs), more durable condoms, HIV education, and poverty reduction initiatives.

Many cite AIDS-related tragedies from the VMMC program. They seek an end to the circumcision campaign as a public health disaster and a form of cultural imperialism from the West. “It is something that has been imposed on us,” a reverend explained in his interview. “If I could get a forum to fight it, I could fight it very hard.”

*VMMC-promoting institutions include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, USAID, PEPFAR, Jhpiego (Johns Hopkins University), and numerous NGOs.

About the VMMC Experience Project The VMMC Experience Project is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit effort to document the effects and aftermath of the world’s first mass surgical campaign. Its aim is to empower the most frequently overlooked contingent in the African circumcision regime: Africans.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

ZIMBABWE: Aid conditional on accepting circumcision

AllAfrica.com
October 1, 2012

Zimbabwe: Will Circumcision Change Behaviour or Reinforce Machismo?


By Rashweat Mukundu A mood of sober curiosity as dozens of men - young and old-waited for their turn on the surgical table in order to have their foreskins chopped off characterised Harare's Spilhaus Family Planning Centre.

Following research that found circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission by as much as 60%, a USAID-supported programme aims to circumcise two million Zimbabwean men by 2015. So far, 55 000 have undergone the procedure.

I volunteered to take part after I received an HIV test and the advice that circumcision helps to prevent HIV and many other diseases.

Before the short surgical operation, all participants are tested for HIV and AIDS and provided with counselling services. They also take part in an awareness discussion about the benefits of circumcision. The discussion appeared to ease the expressions of fear and concern present on most faces in the room.

...

Circumcision remains a polarising issue, especially between men and women. Many of my female friends realise the obvious health benefits, including a lower risk of HIV infection. For women especially, if their boyfriend or husband is circumcised it lessens the chance he will infect them with HIV should he stray outside the relationship. [DANGEROUSLY WRONG - It does no such thing.]

...

As a government policy, it appears circumcision is reluctantly promoted by some MPs because other health-related and donor-funded initiatives are tied to this programme.

[In a word, blackmail.]

And while the benefits of circumcision have been proven, the temptation of circumcised men to feel "protected" - and hence indulge in unsafe sexual practices - is a dangerous risk likely also increased because of this programme.

A few weeks into my healing process, I heard from a man I'd met at the clinic. He said his organ had healed and wanted to "test" it. He made it clear that he wanted to "test" the organ on a number of sexual partners to be sure the he is "ok."

This illustrates the false attitude among many sexually active circumcised men that circumcision gives them license to take part in multiple sexual liaisons. Messages about the benefits of circumcision do not seem fully integrated into HIV prevention campaigns in a way that underscores the point that even circumcised men are at risk of contracting and spreading the virus. As such, continued emphasis on condom use and, more importantly, the development, awareness and access to HIV preventive methods that give women power over their sexuality, is key. [Circumcising men reduces women's ability to demand condoms.]

Circumcision does not necessarily result in male sexual behaviour changes. For many macho men, it might as well be another trophy in the cabinet. Such men have not understood the message that it is but one method of HIV prevention - men still need to be faithful and use condoms.

...

Monday, August 13, 2012

ILLINOIS: New AAP male circumcision policy expected next month

August 13, 2012
.
The Intactivism Pages
August 13, 2012

AAP male circumcision policy due in September

By Hugh Young
The American Academy of Pediatrics plans to issue a new policy on male circumcision at the end of the month. The policy is forshadowed in the Contents of the September issue of Pediatrics.

The new policy has been delayed several times since it was announced that a task force had been convened to examine the issue. The previous AAP male circumcision policy was issued in 1999.[This site rebuts it here.]

The AAP has never recommended male circumcision, but since the 1970s it has issued policies that leave the decision up to parents. The policies have always closely reflected US - but not world - cultural biases toward circumcision, omitting the structure and functions of the foreskin, passing over the lack of ethics in practising unnecessary reductive surgery on healthy newborns, and emphasising minor benefits while minimizing its risks and inevitable harms.

The AAP's treatment of the issue is in sharp contrast to that of other countries, such as the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG), which roundly condems the practice. In May, a court in Cologne, Germany, ruled that circumcision of a healthy boy was bodily harm under the Basic Law.

One member of the task force on male circumcision, Dr Douglas Diekema, has hinted that the policy would lean further towards recommending genital cutting of healthy babies in the USA, in the light of studies of male volunteers for the adult operation in high-HIV-prevalance areas of Africa that seemed to show a reduction in their - but not women's - acquistion of HIV by heterosexual intercourse. (To the contrary, one study suggested male circumcision might increasethe risk to women. USAID surveys of HIV rates show higher rates among circumcised than non-circumcised men, in a majority of the countries for which it has figures.)

Dr Diekema was the chair of the AAP's Bioethics Committee in 2010 when it issued a policy that would allow a token, ritual nick to girls' genitals "much less extensive than neonatal male genital cutting". An outcry by anti-FGC organisations, led by Intact America, caused the policy to be "retired" within a month.

Speaking in more general terms, Dr Diekema has said under oath "I fully agree with the Bioethics Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics when they state:

"...[P]roviders have legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else expresses. ... The pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires or proxy consent."

- but he has never applied this to male infant circumcision.