To cut or not to cut? A public health policy dilemma

[Guest guest]

Dear FORUM,

A sacred religious ritual indicating the life cycle transition of male members

of few religious communities are presenting a public health policy dilemma.

In the secular world a battle is developing " around the bit of skin at the end

of the penis " (as BBC presented it). Some say this is a matter of life or

death. Research suggesting that male circumcision could drastically reduce the

spread of HIV in Africa has been in the spotlight recently. During the recent

International AIDS Conference, there was open call for integrating, promotion of

male circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy. However, there is only a

limited 'policy dialog' on the merit and the implications of promoting male

circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy.

Even, an open discussion on such a sensitive topic could be controversial.

However, ignoring such a debate also has it's own peril. HIV response is always

about confronting difficult questions.

1. Should routine male circumcision be introduced to stop the spread of HIV,

should the practice be completely banned? Or should it be voluntary?

2. Would, promoting penal hygiene reduces HIV transmission rates similar to the

levels of male circumcision?

3. Should circumcision, to be promoted as a viable HIV prevention practice in

India?

4. Would reports that suggest circumcision reduces the risk of HIV encourage you

to be circumcised, or to have your children circumcised?

5. Do you know what it involves? (When to do it, how to do it, clinical

procedure or non clinical procedure etc.)

6. If circumcision prevents HIV infection, should NACO provide access to the

procedure?

Moderator

AIDS INDIA eFORUM

/