When I recently read about how the State minister for health blasted men who take male circumcision to be a lasting preventive measure, I kind of got confused.
Isn’t it the ministry of health has been campaigning for ?
If some simple minded men take this to be a greenlight for them to abandon the condom and any other measure and rely on circumcision. If any one was to get infected I would squarely put the blame on the ministry because knowing our people, their understanding is always skewed and hearing such a campaign only gives tem confidence.
The moment the ministry initiated a campaign for male circumcision, assuring all and sundry that it was a preventive measure towards HIV/AIDS infection; men kind of got a go ahead to have unprotected sex. Even if it was explained that this was not a lasting preventive measure. To some simple minded men, this was enough since they believe it can prevent HIV to a certain degree.
Now this is my question to the ministry of health. If at all they were not sure why did they start such a campaign, why initiate something that you are sure can be relied upon. Secondly, why initiate male circumcision when men could use other alternatives such as condoms or be faithful to their spouses?
If I could reason like a simple minded man, urging me to undergo male circumcision as a preventive measure for HIV when I could use a condom is a go ahead for me to have live sex without the threat of being infected with HIV/AIDS.
If the minister now thinks that male circumcision cannot be relied upon, I suggest they put an end to the all male circumcision campaign. Given that it is not a lasting preventive measure, why should men bother to go under the knife when there are other alternatives such as condoms or fidelity?
Just asking
