The 2009 Female Nation Survey undertaken by women24 shows some really alarming statistics. You can look at the results of this survey here.
Most worrying is that 47% of the over 8000 women who responded NEVER use condoms when having sex. The majority of respondents to this survey were in the 25 to 34 years age group. South Africa's current statistics show that the HIV prevalence in that age group is around 23 and 39% for women, and between 12 and 23% for men.
The majority of respondents to this survey live in cities, and have access to the internet (that is how the survey was completed), and have a tertiary degree.
1 in 3 respondents to the survey had cheated on their partners, and almost 1 in 4 of them knew about their partner having an affair. It suggests a worrying trend of sexual behaviour that is not taking sexual health into consideration. his survey shows that the 'it won't happen to me' myth is alive and well.
I hope that women who responded to this survey read the results and become worried. We are responsible for our own sexual health and must continue to practice safe sex, whether with one partner, or multiple partners to ensure that HIV prevalence does not increase.
Showing posts with label sexual health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexual health. Show all posts
Monday, August 3, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Maternal Deaths Soar in SA
Maternal deaths in SA have risen 20% in the 2005 to 2007 period.*
You can read the article i'm referring to here
4077 pregnant women died in this period: 3 women every day (and this is recognised as a reflection of only some of the deaths, because many are not reported, or the women 'choose'** not to attend a public or private health facility). The South African health department published these stats and the report citing 'poor assessment of health problems' and 'failure to follow health protocol' as the major reasons for these deaths, at least 38% of which where completely avoidable according to the report.
What on earth is happening here? And what recourse can women have when they have no option but to have their baby?
The report lists HIV as the cause of death in 43.7% of cases. 79% of maternal deaths tested were HIV positive (though their HIV may not have been the primary cause of their death). This are scary statistics that make clear the undeniable existence of a generalised HIV epidemic in South Africa. The South African National Strategic Plan for HIV and STIs 2007 - 2011 recognises the links between HIV and maternal deaths and pledges to expand postnatal cover to HIV positive women including nutritional support, formula for breastfeeding and the inclusion of community based strategies for support of pregnant women before and after their pregnancy. It is important for all of us involved in women's rights to ask NOW - where are these promised safety nets? And if they have not yet begun to be stitched who can be held accountable, and how can we begin stitching them ourselves?
It makes clear another problem and that is that many women are pregnant and HIV positive, indicating that there needs to be a reduction in the vulnerability of girls and women to HIV (another promise made in the NSP). Part of this involves education about rights, improved legal services for women, better training of people responding to women's needs (particularly the SAPS), and ensuring that law (whether South African national law or South African cultural law) protects women rather than obstructs their rights.
This is not an isolated issue. Poverty, poor transport, poor education, poor nutrition, poor salaries in the health care sector, poor screening of pregnant women for other diseases, poor management on the part of the Department of Health and a lack of political will on the part of government to consider the lives of these 4077 women as important lives lost indicate an extremely large, extremely broad problem that requires immediate attention.
These women would have been mothers. They would have been carers. They would have helped other women and other men and many children to lead productive lives and develop South Africa. They would have cared for other women, men and children who were ill to get better. I watched sky news the other day and they showed the depth of the grief of citizens about the deaths of British soldiers, and allowed these soldiers to be identified as people who can given their lives for a particular cause.
I wonder now where our grief is for our women, our soldiers and casualties in the war against HIV and state inefficiency?
* Maternal deaths are defined as "deaths of women while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management but not from accidental or incidental causes."
** Choose is a very powerful word, and I recognise that the choice not to go to a health centre may not be a choice at all, but may be a result of societal, familial, religious or cultural pressures. Thus when I describe it here I mean a choice within a very limited context in most cases.
You can read the article i'm referring to here
4077 pregnant women died in this period: 3 women every day (and this is recognised as a reflection of only some of the deaths, because many are not reported, or the women 'choose'** not to attend a public or private health facility). The South African health department published these stats and the report citing 'poor assessment of health problems' and 'failure to follow health protocol' as the major reasons for these deaths, at least 38% of which where completely avoidable according to the report.
What on earth is happening here? And what recourse can women have when they have no option but to have their baby?
The report lists HIV as the cause of death in 43.7% of cases. 79% of maternal deaths tested were HIV positive (though their HIV may not have been the primary cause of their death). This are scary statistics that make clear the undeniable existence of a generalised HIV epidemic in South Africa. The South African National Strategic Plan for HIV and STIs 2007 - 2011 recognises the links between HIV and maternal deaths and pledges to expand postnatal cover to HIV positive women including nutritional support, formula for breastfeeding and the inclusion of community based strategies for support of pregnant women before and after their pregnancy. It is important for all of us involved in women's rights to ask NOW - where are these promised safety nets? And if they have not yet begun to be stitched who can be held accountable, and how can we begin stitching them ourselves?
It makes clear another problem and that is that many women are pregnant and HIV positive, indicating that there needs to be a reduction in the vulnerability of girls and women to HIV (another promise made in the NSP). Part of this involves education about rights, improved legal services for women, better training of people responding to women's needs (particularly the SAPS), and ensuring that law (whether South African national law or South African cultural law) protects women rather than obstructs their rights.
This is not an isolated issue. Poverty, poor transport, poor education, poor nutrition, poor salaries in the health care sector, poor screening of pregnant women for other diseases, poor management on the part of the Department of Health and a lack of political will on the part of government to consider the lives of these 4077 women as important lives lost indicate an extremely large, extremely broad problem that requires immediate attention.
These women would have been mothers. They would have been carers. They would have helped other women and other men and many children to lead productive lives and develop South Africa. They would have cared for other women, men and children who were ill to get better. I watched sky news the other day and they showed the depth of the grief of citizens about the deaths of British soldiers, and allowed these soldiers to be identified as people who can given their lives for a particular cause.
I wonder now where our grief is for our women, our soldiers and casualties in the war against HIV and state inefficiency?
* Maternal deaths are defined as "deaths of women while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management but not from accidental or incidental causes."
** Choose is a very powerful word, and I recognise that the choice not to go to a health centre may not be a choice at all, but may be a result of societal, familial, religious or cultural pressures. Thus when I describe it here I mean a choice within a very limited context in most cases.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Male circumcision - women's rights getting the chop?
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.
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:
Posts (Atom)
