The reason for the change in strategy is said to have been occasioned by the recent studies in Kenya and South Africa that indicate that Male circumcision more than halves the chance of contracting HIV/Aids among males (by up to 60%).

The names of the United Nations and the World Health Organization are thrown around to give credibility to these claims even as it is obvious that the information has not been subjected to the peer review process nor been published in a reputable refereed journa. But why go to all the trouble, this is Kenya and Africa we are talking about, they are addicted to instructions from on high and if the ‘cut' is the offered answer, let them all suffer it. That at least that appears to be the attitude.

This is unsettling primarily because it comes at a time when Kenya in particular and the East and Central African region in general are reporting gains in war against HIV/Aids . These gains, unheralded as they are have come about through increased education on STIs and AIDS, increased ARV availability and the widespread use of health education and Voluntary Counseling services, including for those already infected.

What is disturbing about this new tack is;

Ø There is no recognition of the need to encourage homegrown strategies to combat HIV/Aids, we have medical scientists and I cannot see that they have been involved in any of this.

Ø Going by current statistics, over 20 million people have HIV/Aids in Africa, I doubt very much that lining up the men in this group for a prepuce nip will be much help.

Ø No effectiveness tests have been carried out on circumcision as a preventative strategy, what is cited is anecdotal evidence that could be due to any number of factors including malaria prevalence, water borne diseases and pure bias.

Ø Circumcision is an issue that polarizes Kenyans, Africans and people the world over, especially as it comes attached to cultural and identity issues. If circumcision were a vaccine with some proven efficacy, we could debate this some more; it is not. Instead,  it's merely one of the many things that play a part in reducing the incidence.

Ø Is this likely to be a distraction from the current efforts in fighting the pandemic? As such is it not a step in the wrong direction.

Ø Where else in the world would you be so insensitive, as to single out a community like the Luo people have been singled out without risking a major backlash.

Hopefully my writing will not come across as opposition to the idea that male circumcision has health benefits,  but rather that we should not spend scarce resources on unproven measures as a HIV/Aids management and preventative strategy. An alternative would be to include it in standard health promotion awareness and to prosecute such efforts in a culturally sensitive manner.

An important point to note is that the majority of the communities do not circumcise, exposure to HIV in these countries dates back to the same periods that is took hold in Africa but they have not been nearly as affected by the scourge. It's time to look at what other dynamics are at play, without getting distracted by what is like to be an emotive and a counterproductive debate.

This is yet another example of donors using their purse strings to tweak and experiment on local cultural practices they neither appreciate nor understand.