Malawi: Episcopal Bishops Endorse Male Circumcision as HIV Prevention Measure

Submitted by anthony on Wed, 2012-02-15 19:39

Article here. Excerpt:

'The Episcopal Conference of Malawi (ECM), a college of all catholic bishops in the country, has endorsed government’s proposal for the adaptation of medical male circumcision as a mean for HIV prevention.

However, ECM General Secretary Father George Buleya said the endorsement is on condition that Catholics should be accessing the service in catholic health facilities only.

“We have taken this stand on the understanding that circumcision contravenes no Biblical teachings” said Father Buleya. The cleric said while they have adopted male circumcision, the Catholic Church was still against the use of condoms as an HIV preventive measure. Various researches are agreeing that male circumcision can reduce HIV transmission by 60 percent, on top of reducing by 100 percent transmission of other Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) such as gonorrhea and syphilis. Apart from that, it is also believed that male circumcision greatly reduces risk of cervical cancer in women.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

First, this is the Episcopal Church of Malawi, not the actual Catholic Church of Rome. They are using the word "catholic" in a different sense than "Catholic". Second, note the Malawi gov't is stopping use of anti-retrovirals* while the Malawi Episcopal Church is decrying the use of condoms. Meanwhile, both entities actually think the HIV spread-rate will drop.

God help them and the people of Malawi.

----
*I see that they are doing so because of side-effect concerns and in favor of using a better anti-ret drug. Problem is, as the article says, it is hard to get it out there. So in the mean time, people won't bet getting anti-rets while being told they should not use condoms but get circumcised and everything'll be hunky-dory.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2012-02-16 02:12

What really makes no sense to me is the fact that people still by into this crap despite the fact that even if male circumcision reduced the chance of HIV infection by up to 60% and greatly reduced the chance of cervical cancer in women, it still would not justify removing that part of a man's anatomy.

Imagine the genders are reversed. If removal of the clitoral hood (the female equivalent of the foreskin) reduced HIV transmissions by 60% and greatly reduced a man's chances of developing penile or testicular cancer, would most people consider a mass lopping off of clitoral hoods to be an appropriate course of action?

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by xtrnl on Fri, 2012-02-17 05:10