 |
 |
Thursday September 02, 2010
|
Controversy
Controversy
To be sure, smoking harms the smoker and others, but so do sexually transmitted infections, HIV, HPV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, hepatitis B, trichomoniasis, genital herpes and lymphogranuloma venereum. The condom, it is claimed, can lessen the rate of transmission of HIV by approximately 90 per cent. This is true only if used properly in every case of intercourse, which is not likely to happen. The condom is said to somewhat reduce the risk of spreading sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in general, but the Centres for Disease Control pointed out in 2003 that even a relatively low-risk sexual activity can become a significant risk if people do it often enough, and also that oral sex seems to have caught on in a big way. The effect of freely available condoms and an increase in family planning services on the rate of pregnancies and of STIs is relevant to the question of the relationship of condom use to an increase in promiscuity. A study in 2004, from Nottingham University in Scotland, confirmed that teens who have access to the morning-after pill (MAP) engage in higher rates of sexually promiscuous behaviour, contract more STIs and have higher rates of abortion than do teens who do not have such access.1 A study in Glasgow, Scotland, where schools handed out condoms and sent pupils to clinics for the MAP, found pregnancies among 13-15 year olds jumped 10 per cent in one year (Daily Mail, Dec. 1, 2003, ED_sci., p.10). A study by David Paton of Nottingham University has shown that, between 1998 and 2001 in England, the increase in family planning services and availability of the MAP without a physician’s prescription were associated with an increase in the rate of STIs from 93.08 to 119.27. The incidence of chlamydia and gonorrhea increased by 24 per cent.2 The Pope’s response is empirically sound Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Centre for Population and Development Studies, told MercatorNet3 that the best evidence confirms the Pope is correct in his assessment that condom distribution exacerbates the problem of AIDS. “There is,” Green said, “a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.–funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between the greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV infection rates. This may be due, in part, to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction ‘technology’ such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction of risk) by ‘compensating,’ or taking greater chances, than one would take without risk-reduction technology.” Green added: “I also noted that the Pope said ‘monogamy’ was the best single answer to African AIDS, rather than ‘abstinence.’ The best and latest empirical evidence indeed shows the reduction in multiple and concurrent sexual partners is the most important single behaviour change associated with reduction in HIV-infection rates” (the other major factor is male circumcision). Every instance in which HIV rates have fallen in Africa is most attributable to a fundamental alteration in behaviour, especially an increase in faithfulness. In contrast, HIV transmission rates remain high, and have even grown, in other African countries where widespread change of behaviour has not yet occurred, despite considerable increase in condom use. A study originally commissioned by UNAIDS, and conducted by researchers at the University of California at San Francisco, led to an exhaustive review that concluded condoms have not been responsible for turning around any of the severe African epidemics.4 James Shelton of the U.S. Agency for International Development has stated that the notion condoms are the answer to AIDS is a myth.5 In Cameroon, the country to which the Pope was flying when he criticized the use of condoms, condom sales increased from six million to 15 million, while HIV prevalence increased from 3 to 9 per cent.6 According to Green, “The two countries with the worst HIV epidemics are Swaziland and Botswana ... and have launched campaigns to discourage multiple and concurrent partners and to encourage fidelity.”7 In contrast, Genevieve Pollack, reporting from Uganda on March 15, 2009, stated that Rose Busingye, who directs Meeting Point Kampala, a centre in Kampala that every day cares for 4,000 people suffering from AIDS, has said, “The Pope is doing nothing else but defending and supporting precisely that which will be useful for helping these people, affirming the meaning of life and the dignity of the human being.” She also stated that abstinence and fidelity in marriage have contributed to reducing the spread of AIDS in Uganda from 18 per cent of the population to 3 per cent.8 Condom use and pregnancy Karen R. Davis and Susan C. Weller, in an article in Family Planning Perspectives, 1999, stated that the level of protection from HIV afforded by condom use is approximately 87 per cent, with a range depending on the incidence among condom users. Thus, they say, the condom’s efficacy at reducing heterosexual transmission may be comparable to, or slightly lower than, its effectiveness at preventing pregnancy. Father James F. Keenan, S.J., Father Jon D. Feller, S.J., and Sister Mary Owens (who has worked with AIDS patients in Nairobi) state that it is morally acceptable for a couple to use a condom when one of them has HIV. They say this despite Church teaching that the use of a condom is intrinsically evil. It is of interest at this point to consider the efficacy of birth control, judged by the probability of pregnancy over time for women who use condoms. Time Span vs. Probability of Pregnancy 1 year - 15% 2 years - 28% 3 years - 39% 4 years - 48% 5 years - 56% These are the lowest rates of probability, since they assume 100 per cent condom use.9,10 The effectiveness of birth control, as distinguished from its efficacy, refers to protection under actual conditions of use, including condom breakage, slippage and human error. Condoms break 6.64 per cent of the time and slip 3.4 per cent of the time. The effectiveness of the condom in preventing HIV infection is much lower than its effectiveness in preventing pregnancy. This is because conception can occur only during the five to seven fertile days of the menstrual cycle, while HIV infection can occur at any time. For these reasons, what Dr. Michael Gottlieb said is true. He, who is the scientist who made the original report to the Centres for Disease Control on Gay-Related Immune Deficiency (GRID), which was later re-labelled as AIDS, said, “There is no such thing as safe sex for someone contemplating sex with an HIV-positive person.”11,12 Therefore, to recommend that a married couple, one of whom is HIV positive, should have sexual intercourse using a condom, is very bad medical advice. When on January 27, 2008, Dr. Stephen Genuis, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, in a British Medical Journal article, stated: “In theory, condoms offer some protection; however, epidemiological research repeatedly shows that condom familiarity and risk awareness do not result in sustained safer-sex choices in real life. Only a minority of people engaging in risky sex use condoms consistently. A recent study found that ... even among stable adult couples who were HIV discordant and received extensive ongoing counselling about HIV risk and condom use, only 48.4 per cent used condoms consistently.”13 Our Pope, in criticizing the use of condoms, spoke the simple truth. References: 1. “Action on teenage sex backfiring.” Edinburg News, April 5, 2004. This study was presented to the Royal Economic Conference, Swansea, by David Paton, professor Of industrial economics, Nottingham University Business School. 2. Ibid. 3. MercatorNet, March 21, 2009. “African AIDS: The facts that demolish the myths: Michel Cook.” 4. LifeSiteNews.com, March 23, 2009. “The Pope’s Comments on Condoms are Empirically Sound.” 5. James D. Shelton. “Ten myths and one truth about generalized HIV epidemics.” The Lancet, Dec. 1, 2007. pp. 1809-1811. 6. Norman Heart and Sanny Chen. “Condom promotion for AIDS prevention in the developing world: is it working?” Studies in Family Planning. March, 2004. pp. 39-47. 7. National Review Online (NRO), March 19, 2009. Katherine Jean Lopez, “From St. Peter’s Square to Harvard Square.” 8. Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-25480?1=english. 9. Contraceptive Technology (18th Revised Edition), New York: Ardent Media Inc., 2004. 10. The Case Against Condoms, Alfonso Cardinal Lopez Trujillo and Brian Clowes PhD, Human Life International, 2006, p.38. 11. Ibid. 12. John Kelly, MD, “Condom Failure and Transmission of HIV Infection.” CMAC Bulletin, Oct. 1992, p. 19. 13. BMJ, 2008; 336(7631): 185 (26 Jan.). © Copyright 1997-2009 Catholic Insight
|
|
Latest: Controversy |
 |
 |
 |
