Male Circumcision In Zambia

Introduction

A number of scientific studies have looked at the benefits of male circumcision (Chanda et al., 2012; Bailey et al., 2001). Data from a range of studies have shown that circumcised men have lower prevalence of HIV (Human immune virus) than those that are uncircumcised and throughout the world, HIV prevalence is generally lower in populations that practice male circumcision than in populations where most men are uncircumcised (Chanda et al., 2012). Zambia is now scaling up male circumcision and a program through the Ministry of Health, with support from NGOs trained health workers in almost all hospitals, has provided the extra resources such as drugs and surgical supplies specifically for this program (MoH, 2012). Despite the efforts

Over the past decade, numerous epidemiological studies have reported a significant association between lack of male circumcision and risk of HIV infection, leading to recommendations for male circumcision to be added to the armamentarium for effective HIV prevention (Bailey et al., 2001). Westercamp and Bailey (2007) and WHO (2007) considers this level of protection to be significant and therefore recommends introduction of male circumcision in traditional and non-circumcision areas which are plagued with the HIV/AIDS scourge as well as scaling up of safe circumcision efforts in traditional circumcision areas. A study done by Tarimo et al. (2012) showed that informants perceived male circumcision as a health promoting practice that may prevent HIV transmission and other sexually transmitted infections. This is supported by Chanda et al. (2012) where the findings suggest that there is a remarkable and consistent trend in the way that medical male circumcision is perceived amongst college and university students. They present virtually universal knowledge about the procedure, its practice, where it should be conducted, the facts about circumcision and what the prevailing untruths are about the procedure. This indicate that increased knowledge can be a means to increase the

Male circumcision is perceived as a practice that instils fear amongst uncircumcised men, with the most highly indicated source of fear being that of the pain experienced with the procedure and the healing process of male circumcision (Bailey et al., 2002; Bailey et al., 2008; MOH, 2009). There are also other arguments against male circumcision, such as male circumcision is an embarrassing disfigurement. Furthermore, if the control of immoral behaviour has been the only benefit promised by circumcision, it would never have won acceptance beyond a narrow circle of ascetics (Darby, 2013). Circumcision solutions have several fundamental flaws that undermine the potential for success (Van Howe and Storms, 2011). According to the conclusion of the study by Howe and Storms (2011), the circumcision solution is a wasteful detraction that takes resources away from more effective, less expensive, less invasive alternatives. They explore data on which circumcision recommendation are biased, the difficulties in translating results from high risk adults in a research setting to the general public, the impact of risk composition and how circumcision compares to existing alternatives. The gap between advocates of male circumcision and those against is wide and this creates different perceptions towards the subject of male