You can read this article and public commentary of it here.
Background: Male circumcision has been linked to decreased transmission and contraction of HIV for men. It is being celebrated by scientists as an almost too obvious answer in the struggle to decrease HIV transmission. In South Africa, a country steeped in cultural and traditional ties to circumcision whilst at the same time suffering from increasing HIV prevalence (in some groups, particularly young women) this link is somewhat a double-edged sword for women.
Firstly, when MC (and I am speaking about medical circumcision performed by a 'western'* style doctor rather than traditional circumcision performed by a cultural healer/traditional healer) is touted as a preventative measure to HIV transmission, many women will be faced with increased resistance from men with regards to condom usage. It has become clear that behavioural changes are as necessary in the struggle against HIV as medical changes and developments are. South African men have been startlingly slow on the uptake and the struggle against HIV has been met with a struggle against condom usage by many men. It is perhaps obvious, that when these men who would have struggled condom usage before being circumcised are told about the links between circumcision and reduced HIV transmission they may be even less inclined to put a glove on their love.
Second, if these men are convinced in circumcision such that it becomes seen as an almost 100% prevention method (in reality the numbers are closer to around 60%) they may be more inclined to have multiple partners, endangering the sexual health of their partners (however many) through exposure to other STIs, and reducing their feelings of responsibility in transmitting these diseases.
Third, if
- men have (even further) reduced feelings of responsibility for transmitting STIs and HIV and/or believe that being circumcised makes them unable to contract HIV,
-are in a relationship with a female partner (or a number of female partners) and,
-they become infected with HIV, or learn of their HIV positive status, then
it is likely that women will be blamed for 'giving' HIV to them.
In a global culture where women are frequently labelled as carriers of disease and are held responsible for its spread it is important to consider the ramifications for women in this case.
Stigma is a powerful driver in HIV transmission. It decreases the chances that people will get tested. It serves as a barrier to treatment and community support for people living with HIV/AIDS (plwha). PLWHA are often seen as dirty, sexually unclean, morally loose and are associated with a number of negative character traits regardless of their own character. To advocate for a prevention strategy that will increase stigma associated with women is to advocate for worsening the situation of some of the most socially and economically vulnerable members of society.
This strategy is still being researched and must be recognised as an attempt by the scientific society to find some sort of solution in a climate of pressure to find a cure for HIV.
It must be taken as a step forward, but not neccessarily a step that can be taken at the moment. And if the step is taken it must be taken lightly and the interests of all South African's must be considered, not least those of plwha - particularly women.
*western is a problematic term for me, as is african, european etc, but the use of it here is to illustrate the distinction as it has been created in the media and in public discussion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment