REPORTS by the Choma District medical office that more than 1,500 males were last month circumcised during the Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision (VMMC) exercise in the district shows how effective the circumcision campaign launched by health workers has been.
What is even more pleasing in the case of Choma is that there was overwhelming response which actually resulted into 1,540 males aged between 15 and 49 years being circumcised, beating the target of 1,257 which was set by health personnel.
According to acting district community medical officer Austin Muchanga, this represented a coverage of 123 per cent.
We commend the male circumcision activists, not only in Choma District but nation-wide, for this feat because it has resulted into circumcision, which until recently was only practiced by a few ethnic groups, suddenly becoming a very popular practice.
Over the years, circumcision has had its critics and supporters alike.
Critics of the practice argue, firstly, that it reduces sensitivity, meaning that circumcised men may experience less pleasure during sex.
Secondly, they say that circumcision’s other disadvantage has to do with its potential complications, which include excessive bleeding and infection, especially when conducted in unhygienic conditions.
Critics further argue that routinely circumcising baby boys on medical grounds violates the principle of consent to treatment. They charge that circumcision should only be performed when a boy is old enough to make an informed decision about whether he wishes to be circumcised.
However, proponents of the practice, mainly health workers, see no problems with male circumcision which they say tends to protect males and their sexual partners against a variety of infections, as well as adverse medical conditions.
If conducted by experienced (medical) personnel, they say that the procedure is very safe, simple, pain-free and inexpensive. Although it can be performed at any age, they advise the ideal time to be infancy.
Male circumcision may, therefore, in principle be compared to childhood vaccination.
We are told that health benefits of male circumcision are enormous and include reduced risks of urinary tract infections which health workers say are common over the lifetime and often cause permanent kidney damage in babies.
Other public health benefits of male circumcision are reduced risk of contracting prostate cancer, sexually transmitted diseases, including the potentially fatal diseases such as HIV/AIDS and, in female partners, cervical cancer.
Some people, further, say that circumcision has socio-sexual benefits as it reduces sexual problems with age and diabetes, and tends to enhance the sexual experience for men.
In fact, most women reportedly prefer the circumcised penis for appearance, hygiene, lower infection risk and sexual activity.
Those who listen to urologist, Dr Francis Manda’s radio programme have usually heard him explain how at least half of all uncircumcised males risk developing one or more problems over their lifetime caused by their foreskin, saying many men may suffer and die as a result.
Of course issues of this nature always provoke interesting debate and, just as there will always be opponents of vaccination, so will there be opponents of circumcision.
But what should not be in dispute, as medical personnel say, is the fact that benefits of circumcision vastly outweigh risks by over 100 to 1.
Given this convincing ratio, it is not surprising that males in Choma District have embraced the practice, and we believe routine male circumcision should be highly recommended everywhere in Zambia.