Salt * Wet * Fish

A very well written article about the condom debate. Mostly, this debate occurs within the domain of abstinence, which is essential a program run by fundamentalist Christian in the guise of a secular program. Unfortunately, our PAP govt, which is made up mostly of people from the same camp, subscribe to this ideology perpertual by them. Most of the debate against condoms is based around morality (whose?) and fear. However, the fundies play the morality and fear card very well that they were never really questioned into producing statistics to backup their claims.

Of course “everyone” knows that if you distribute condoms, it will encourage people will have more sex and degrade of moral standards. Yeah, everyone knows that, but no one have seen it happen yet. Instead, studies have shown the contrary. What’s wrong with more sex? What’s wrong with pre-marital sex? Whose moral standards are we talking about. You talk to anyone, most people will agree that there is a drop in a moral standard, but if you ask them for specifics, each will give you their interpretation. This is not different from “asian values”. Most peoples seems to know what “asian values” is, but they will be surprised that their asian value could be vastly different from another Asian’s asian values.

I am clipping this as part of my library of knowledge when dealing with fundies.

July 26, 2006
Condoms the best way to reduce sexual disease transmission

I REFER to the letter, ‘Giving out condoms to spread anti-Aids message won’t work’ by Mr Jestyn Koh (ST Online Forum, July 24). Mr Koh believes distributing condoms will not stem the spread of Aids, citing the less-than-perfect protection condoms provide and the concern that handing out condoms is akin to encouraging sex. I strongly disagree.

First, while condoms do not provide absolute protection against HIV/Aids, research on their effectiveness in preventing transmission is both comprehensive and conclusive. Allow me to cite a position statement from the World Health Organisation, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/Aids (UNAids) and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA): ‘The male latex condom is the single most efficient available technology to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted disease. Condoms will remain the key preventive tool for many, many years to come.’ And from the National Centre for HIV, STD and TB Prevention in the United States: ‘The consistent and proper use of condoms does provide a high degree of protection against heterosexual transmission of HIV.’ Simply put, no method is perfect but the condom comes pretty close.

More important, I would like to stress that the effectiveness of condoms in preventing disease transmission lies not in the inherent quality of the product, but in its effective, consistent and proper use. As such, I applaud Singapore’s effort to stem the spread of Aids and further recommend that the Ministry of Health follow up with a campaign for single young men and condom promotion initiatives.

Second, while abstinence may be a good way to prevent HIV and STD transmission, the question remains: How effective is abstinence as a strategy to reduce HIV transmission?

According to the Guttmacher Institute, a US non-profit organisation that does sexual and reproductive health research, there is no conclusive evidence that abstinence-only programmes have been successful in any country in the world in reducing HIV transmission. Similarly, the effectiveness of abstinence as a long-term strategy was refuted by a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society which reported that not only was the ‘virginity pledge’ broken by more than 60 per cent of participants, but 55 per cent who reported keeping their virginity admitted to engaging in risky forms of non-vaginal sex.

The concern that condom promotion will encourage sex is unwarranted. In fact, research has shown that condom promotion does not increase sexual activity and such programmes tend to be conservative, encouraging delayed sexual onset and fewer partners. In addition, condom promotion has been recognised as an important activity in the prevention of HIV transmission, as evidenced in countries like Thailand and Uganda, where control of the epidemic is largely attributed to condom promotion and other activities.

Disparaging condoms in an effort to promote abstinence is seriously misguided and irresponsible simply because this could increase the likelihood that people will fail to use condoms when they do have sex, putting themselves at unnecessary risk.

The key here is to implement an effective and realistic strategy to reduce the spread of HIV/Aids. We must recognise the complexity of sexual relations and design interventions that provide realistic choices. We must resist efforts to impose a specific morality or value judgment on individuals. We must respect the individual and find ways to give people realistic and effective options that enable them to protect their health and even their lives.

Ultimately, we must take care not to let ideology trump science in addressing public health concerns. Empowering individuals to make informed choices is the only approach that works. Distributing condoms is a great first step, and condom promotion and education are natural complements. The Government and health-care providers can and should do their part in providing accurate information. But in the end, whether condoms or abstinence, it remains the choice of the individual.

Terence Teo New York, United States