Kenya has HIV/AIDS prevalence of about 6.1% according to a study by UNAIDS conducted in 2006. This provides an excellent case study of any medical research and thus the choice of this article. This paper will focus on the Luo, its belief in male circumcision and the relationship between male circumcision and HIV/AIDS infection. In addition, main points from the article used are summarized with ways that enhance efficient communication to demonstrate cultural sensitivity coming before the conclusion (UNAIDS 2006).
The HIV/AIDS pandemic affects the Sub-Saharan countries the most, with prevalence of averagely 8.8% (UNAIDS 2006). These are alarming statistics given the rate at which HIV/AIDS is killing people in Africa. The statistics have fostered awareness among the region’s countries. One of the chief campaign strategies that regard HIV/AIDS infection is male circumcision and its ability to reduce HIV/AIDS infection. Some cultural groups in Sub-Saharan countries do not practice male circumcision. Among these are the Luo, a cultural group in Kenya, East Africa.
The Luo speakers of Kenya do not practice male circumcision given their conservative cultural values. They instead recognize initiation where there is the removal of six front teeth: three on the upper jaw and three on the lower jaw. Since time immemorial, the Luo people have rejected the idea of circumcision despite the numerous persuasions from the health community. One of the key stumbling blocks in this matter regards the Luo Elders determined to uphold the traditions of the community. They have on several occasions thwarted the efforts by the government and other non-governmental organizations that promote circumcision with regard to its health advantage. Statistics and research indicate that male circumcision does a lot in reducing the probability of one contracting HIV/AIDS. Various studies have gone ahead to certify this thesis with statistics always supporting it. Sample results of statistics from various countries include Botswana that has male circumcision at 25% with HIV/AIDS prevalence of 24.1%. Namibia has 15% male circumcision and prevalence of 19.6%. On the better side is Burkina Faso with 89% and prevalence of 2% and Mauritius with over 80% circumcised and only prevalence of 0.6% (UNAIDS 2006). The main reasons as to why male circumcision reduces the chances of one getting infected have never been exhaustively studied and publicized. This is due to the fear that a majority will misinterpret the message and ignore the usage of other important and effective contraceptives. This has been one of the principle fears given the probability that male circumcision offers is not 100%. It only offers 53% as compared to about 20% of the population that is uncircumcised. The ignorance is more likely to happen in primitive cultural communities that practice the circumcision. Another fear concerns Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Other cultural groups might go ahead and conclude that circumcision in females might yield the same results thus achieving reduced HIV/AIDS infection, a misconception that is entirely wrong. Most health organizations, both governmental and non-governmental, prefer to focus more on preaching what male circumcision does than explaining how it makes it possible to reduce the chances of HIV/AIDS inspection (Serah, 2008). There are vast effects of HIV/AIDS experienced in Kenya that include social and economic. These have made fraction of the Luo population start making sense of circumcision and thus start adopting the practice. This trend is a result of the sensitization that the numerous health organizati