December 2004

Condom letters in 'Today'

source: 'Voices' section of 'Today' newspaper, 30 Nov - 8 Dec 2004

     

  

 

 
30 November 2004
Published in 'Today'

Timely warning on the dangers of pre-marital sex

In conjunction with World Aids Day tomorrow, I would like to urge Singapore parents to remind their teenage children of the very real dangers of pre-marital sex.

As of last year, Singapore had 14 detected cases of teenagers with Aids. Just listen to their "too-late" regrets:

John, 20: "Plans? I don't make any plans. How to when you don't have a future?"

Veronica, 18: "When we first had sex, you think it just can't happen to you. I mean how unlucky can you get? Besides, I trusted my boyfriend. Now I feel I have no control over my own life."

For a teenage girl, to be pregnant with an unwanted baby is not as disastrous as contracting Aids. Aids can also be transmitted from an infected mother to her baby.

An American doctor who has treated many teenage Aids victims had these wise words: "I'm going to tell my daughters that having sex is dangerous and that condoms give a false sense of security.

"Reducing is not the same as eliminating the risk of a disease like Aids. There is no safe sex. We should stop kidding ourselves. Passing out condoms to teenagers is like issuing them squirt guns for a four-alarm blaze."

Concerned parents should ponder: While your son or daughter may be well brought up, if he or she should fall in love and marry someone who has been "sleeping around", the risk of Aids is not only just for your child, but your future grandchildren as well.


See Leong Kit

* * * * *

 

Foreword by Yawning Bread

Here is an exchange of 4 letters published in 'Today' newspaper. It begins with yet another guy preaching abstinence. In their zeal to get people to abstain from sex, these writers rubbish the effectiveness of condoms.

In particular, the scare tactic used in these letters is that "condoms are only 85% effective", implying that 15% of the time, you're going to get infected.

Christopher Low points out that this is deception. It is not even supported by the very NIH study the abstinence writer cited.

His research indicates that John Hui Keem Peng is with the Catholic Medical Guild of Singapore.

 

2 December 2004
Published in 'Today'

Bursting the 'bad condom' myth

I refer to the letter "Timely warning on the dangers of pre-marital sex" (Nov 30) by See Leong Kit.

Did any of those teens with HIV use a condom consistently and appropriately? Were they educated in its use? Were they misled because they were considered to be a low risk group and thus didn't think they would get HIV?

It is one thing to write a sob story to promote abstinence, another to get the facts about condoms right.

For most of the 20th century, those who promoted an abstinence-until-marriage agenda stymied public health efforts in the United States toward increased condom use. During World War I, for example, US allies, such as New Zealand, gave their soldiers condoms to prevent the transmission of sexually--transmitted infection (STI). But social hygienists in the US forced the American Armed Expeditionary Forces to adopt a chastity campaign and were opposed to any prophylactic prevention of STI.

Consequently, in 1919 alone, US soldiers reported a yearly admissions rate of 766.55 per 1,000 persons for STI. 

In recent years, certain anti-choice radicals have even distorted scientific fact to discourage condom use. Three myths propagated are particularly dangerous. The first purports that talking about condoms or giving people condoms will make them sexually promiscuous. The second claims that condoms cause Aids because HIV allegedly passes through microscopic pores in the latex. The third blames condoms for cervical cancer.

These myths are now so widespread that they are recited in Congress and have been incorporated into the sexuality education programmes of more than a third of US schools. 

Condoms are effective because they block contact with body fluids that cause pregnancy and STI. Most reports of condom failure are the result of inconsistent or incorrect use, not breakage. A recent study of college students found that condom-use errors were very common, while the actual breakage rate is a low two per 100 condoms in the US. High failure rates in some studies occur because many people lie about contraceptive use to shift the responsibility for an unintended pregnancy to a "faulty" contraceptive.

Christopher Low

* * * * * 

 

 
The second half of Christopher's letter was abridged by the editor. This was the original text, where he clearly gave his sources:

In the last several years, certain anti-choice radicals have even distorted scientific fact in order to discourage condom use. Three myths propagated in this anti-condom misinformation campaign are particularly dangerous. The first myth purports that talking about condoms or giving people condoms will make them sexually promiscuous (Hartigan, 1997). The second claims that condoms cause AIDS because HIV allegedly passes through microscopic pores in the latex (A.L.L.). The third blames condoms for cervical cancer (Lerner, 1999; Cantu & Farish, 1999). These myths are now so widespread that they are recited in Congress and have been incorporated into the sexuality education programs of more than a third of U.S. schools (Darroch, et al, 2000; Lerner, 1999; Landry et al., 1999). But none of these myths are true.

Condoms are effective because they block contact with body fluids that cause pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection. Most reports of condom failure are the result of inconsistent or incorrect use, not breakage (Macaluso et al., 1999). A recent study of college students found that condom use errors were very common - 40 percent of the young men surveyed reported that, within the previous three months, they had not left space for ejaculate at the tip of a condom, and 15 percent had taken a condom off before completing intercourse (Crosby et al., 2002). In the U.S., the actual breakage rate is a low two per 100 condoms (CDC, 1998). High failure rates in some studies occur because many people lie about contraceptive use to shift the responsibility for an unintended pregnancy to a "faulty" contraceptive. Such over-reporting artificially inflates failure rates (Trussell, 1998).

 

 

4 December 2004
Published in 'Today'

Condom 'myth' is no tall tale

Facts support doubts on their effectiveness against HIV, STI

I refer to the letter, "Bursting the 'bad condom' myth" (Dec 2) by Christopher Low, who claims that the condom is effective in preventing sexually transmitted infections (STIs). This is a myth in itself that needs to be addressed.

In a 2001 report by the United States' National Institute for Health, the condom was not found to be effective in preventing the transmission of a number of STIs.

In the area of HIV prevention, it was found to be only 85 per cent effective and only if used consistently and correctly. When used to prevent pregnancy, the condom is only 88 per cent effective. Even if four condoms in a batch of 1,000 tested fail, the batch is still passed for distribution and sale. This means that in a batch of one million, up to 4,000 are defective. The condom deteriorates with time, especially in hot and humid conditions like those in Singapore.

Mr Low quoted a breakage rate of 2 per 100 condoms, yet he still advocates their use. This sounds like a version of Russian roulette. Complete, consistent and correct use of condoms by all is wishful thinking. Especially when the influence of alcohol and drugs is part of the equation.

In a study done in San Francisco, Balboa High School students were exposed to "graphic demonstrations" of proper condom use, but the school's condom availability programme was a colossal failure. The percentage of sexually-active students who used condoms almost doubled - but, the school's overall pregnancy rate increased by one quarter. We can assume a similar increase in exposure to HIV infection and other STIs.

Dr Anne Peterson, assistant administrator for global health for the United States Agency for International Development, told a congressional subcommittee last year that, based on the evidence, abstinence is the "most important single message" in the sex education of young people. Unfortunately, some choose to engage in casual sex despite knowing the risks. While we cannot impose a lifestyle change on them, it is imperative that we keep them informed of the fact that the condom is not 100 per cent effective - and empower them with the message that there is another, truly safe lifestyle choice. That is, abstinence from casual sex and faithfulness to one's uninfected spouse. If one is truly pro-choice, one should make available complete and factual information to all.

Dr Hui Keem Peng

* * * * *

 

8 December 2004
Published in 'Today' 

85% figure refers to risk reduction

Dr Hui Keem Peng ("Condom 'myth' is no tall tale", Dec 4) says condoms, used correctly and consistently, are only 85 per cent effective in preventing HIV infection.

That figure refers more accurately to risk reduction. The 2001 report by the United States' National Institute for Health that Dr Hui quotes, states: "Among participants who reported always using condoms, the summary estimate of HIV/Aids incidence was 0.9 seroconversion (HIV-positive testing) per 100 person years. Among those who reported never using condoms, (it) was 6.7 seroconversions per 100 person years."

Overall, it was estimated that "condoms provided an 85 per cent reduction in HIV/Aids transmission risk" when comparing "always" with "never" users of condoms.

What this means is, for every 100 couples (where one partner is HIV-positive) who have repeated sex over a year and who use condoms every time, only 0.9 persons will test positive. Or, if you consistently have sex using condoms with an HIV-positive person over a 100-year period, your chance of becoming HIV-positive after 100 years would be 0.9 per cent.

The 85-per-cent figure arrived at is because the risk of infection in having sex with an HIV-positive person without using a condom is not 100 per cent.

If it were, the figure would be 99.1 per cent.

Christopher Low


 

Footnotes

  1. See also Condom letters in the Straits Times, 
    Condoms only 85 percent effective - not true!,  
    Abstinence programs contain false and misleading information,  
    Don't spread falsehoods, I said to the editor

Addenda

None