The 'Natural Condom'

[AustinHoya03]

Question for those more in the know: would this potential new HIV prevention method be okay with the Catholic church and/or the GOP?

Personally, I'm all for condoms, but if McCain is elected (and I may very well vote for him for other, more important reasons) I doubt that any US dollars will be spent on them in places where better disease prevention is needed. If there's a better alternative than abstinence education, I'm all for it.

news.smh.com.au/national/oestrogen-layer-may-curb-spread-of-hiv-20080604-2ll5.html

[HometownHoya]

Hmm, an increase in your keratin...not only does it prevent against HIV but it makes your package bigger too!

[Boz]

Jun 4, 2008 20:14:19 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

Question for those more in the know: would this potential new HIV prevention method be okay with the Catholic church and/or the GOP?

Personally, I'm all for condoms, but if McCain is elected (and I may very well vote for him for other, more important reasons) I doubt that any US dollars will be spent on them in places where better disease prevention is needed. If there's a better alternative than abstinence education, I'm all for it.

news.smh.com.au/national/oestrogen-layer-may-curb-spread-of-hiv-20080604-2ll5.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't George Bush recently (this year) commit $10 billion in new money to AIDS prevention and treatment in Africa and other underprivileged areas (Caribbean, SE Asia)?

Now, I'm not an expert on the policy, but something tells me that the prevention methods in these areas as part of this effort are a little more than just abstinence education. I'm pretty sure that a lot of the prevention money is focused on prophylaxis.

I think it's safe to say that John McCain would continue, if not enhance, that commitment around the world. (But maybe you meant in the US, I'm not sure.)

[EasyEd]

If this is not also a "birth control" agent, then it should be okay in the Catholic Church.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

Jun 5, 2008 8:33:00 GMT -5 Boz said:

Jun 4, 2008 20:14:19 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

Question for those more in the know: would this potential new HIV prevention method be okay with the Catholic church and/or the GOP?

Personally, I'm all for condoms, but if McCain is elected (and I may very well vote for him for other, more important reasons) I doubt that any US dollars will be spent on them in places where better disease prevention is needed. If there's a better alternative than abstinence education, I'm all for it.

news.smh.com.au/national/oestrogen-layer-may-curb-spread-of-hiv-20080604-2ll5.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't George Bush recently (this year) commit $10 billion in new money to AIDS prevention and treatment in Africa and other underprivileged areas (Caribbean, SE Asia)?

Now, I'm not an expert on the policy, but something tells me that the prevention methods in these areas as part of this effort are a little more than just abstinence education. I'm pretty sure that a lot of the prevention money is focused on prophylaxis.

I think it's safe to say that John McCain would continue, if not enhance, that commitment around the world. (But maybe you meant in the US, I'm not sure.)

I thought that was part of the problem, that a lot of the US aid isn't allowed to go towards prophylaxis and is there fore kind of useless.

[Boz]

I thought the argument was not that the money couldn't go toward prophylaxis, but that it had to be accompanied by abstinence education. Which seems to make sense to me.

I am not too well informed on this issue, so if I am wrong, I will happily stand corrected (and agree that abstinence education alone especially in underprivileged countries is not a practical solution).

And I think we have now reached the limit on using the word "prophylaxis." I get creeped out every time I see that in my dentist's office, I gotta' say. "Yeah. Uh, I'll take the local anesthetic, thank you very much!" ;D

[AustinHoya03]

Jun 5, 2008 9:57:16 GMT -5 Boz said:

I thought the argument was not that the money couldn't go toward prophylaxis, but that it had to be accompanied by abstinence education. Which seems to make sense to me.

I was under the impression that the United States did not include condoms as part of aid programmes, but I cannot find anything to back that up, and in fact it appears you may be correct (link). However, I think that also means we are wasting a lot of money.

The abstinence-only education supported by Bush (or, at least, the abstinence-only education he has suggested should be taught in American schools) is sex ed that does not emphasize condom use. If condoms are mentioned at all it is usually in regard to their high rate of failure. How to properly use a condom is something that is rarely taught.

I say this as someone who lives in a city where this type of sex ed is being taught, partly as a result of Bush's policies as Governor of Texas and as President of the United States. FWIW I interviewed a GU applicant this fall who attended a high school where no less than 1/3 of her female senior classmates were pregnant or had children.

Here's an interesting article on the subject if anyone is interested:
www.texasmonthly.com/2008-05-01/feature2-1.php

[Bando]

For those who were asking, here are some facts (yes, I know it's not a neutral source, but they provide links for all their claims). In short, the US does allow condoms as part of PEPFAR, but their promotion is very limited, which limits the effectiveness of our anti-AIDS efforts. Furthermore, abstinence-only sex education doesn't work.

This situation will change in an Obama administration, and likely won't under a McCain administration.

[Boz]

Some of the facts in that reference do not seem to be backed up by the sources it cites.

For example, citing 66% of funds used for abstinence until marriage programs, while the sources cite that this level at lower levels, one as low as 33%.

Or mentioning condoms only for high risk areas, where the report seems to indicate that the emphasis, not exclusivity, seems to be in high-risk areas.

They seem to be critical of the ABC approach, despite the sources citing some pretty good results of that approach in Uganda and expanding out into other areas (granted, much of the source information is a little dated, but I don't know if newer statistics are available).

I won't defend the CDC or USAID removing important information about condoms fro their Web sites, that just seems stupid. But I do think that there is some pretty good evidence that the US efforts are having a pretty good effect.

I also won't defend abstinence only programs, as I mentioned before, but at the same time, I do think -- and I note that this is opinion -- there seems to be a certain view on the other side of the political spectrum that abstinence shouldn't be emphasized, which seems equally backward and hardheaded.

[Bando]

Jun 6, 2008 13:50:48 GMT -5 Boz said:

Some of the facts in that reference do not seem to be backed up by the sources it cites.

For example, citing 66% of funds used for abstinence until marriage programs, while the sources cite that this level at lower levels, one as low as 33%.

Or mentioning condoms only for high risk areas, where the report seems to indicate that the emphasis, not exclusivity, seems to be in high-risk areas.

They seem to be critical of the ABC approach, despite the sources citing some pretty good results of that approach in Uganda and expanding out into other areas (granted, much of the source information is a little dated, but I don't know if newer statistics are available).

I won't defend the CDC or USAID removing important information about condoms fro their Web sites, that just seems stupid. But I do think that there is some pretty good evidence that the US efforts are having a pretty good effect.

I also won't defend abstinence only programs, as I mentioned before, but at the same time, I do think -- and I note that this is opinion -- there seems to be a certain view on the other side of the political spectrum that abstinence shouldn't be emphasized, which seems equally backward and hardheaded.

Just to be clear, I don't think PEPFAR is a bad program or that it hasn't done a lot of good. In fact, I think it's one of Bush's sterling achievements. I just think it could be better.

Incidentally, there was talk a year or so ago that the Catholic Church might deign condom use in AIDS-ravaged areas a lesser evil than willfully spreading the disease. Nothing really came from it, but it would be nice if they started discussing such an idea again.