The Pope was Right About AIDS

[Chopstick]

Or so says a non-Catholic Harvard scientist named Edward Green. He claims that as a whole, condom education has not been effective, and a more plausible preventative measure is primarily promoting faithfulness and abstinence.

If you google: 'liberal academic edward green' and 'edward green washington post', the top link will be article's about/by Green.

So I'm hoping that someone can help me analyze this particular point that Catholics use to respond to the uproar over the Pope's comments against condoms.

To try to represent the Catholic position in the best light possible, abstinence certainly is the most effective way to keep from getting an STD. The point most people make is that abstinence is not a realistic goal for a large percentage of people. Still, it's plausible that there is some form of education out there that can effectively promote abstinence, even if the current programs in the US haven't shown effective results. In addition, condoms have to be used to be effective, and so, just as education on abstinence doesn't always work, education on condom usage can suffer from similar problems, even granting their high protection rate when used. This would mean that although condoms may work on an individual level, they may still fail on a national level. Also, if people gain a false sense of security from using condoms, then that may lead to increased levels of risky behavior, just like helmets and seatbelts often lead to riskier behavior from drivers and bikers, which offsets the protection provided, perhaps justifying the pope's comments that condoms can 'even increase the problem.'

Now the Harvard scientist, Edward Green, doesn't call condoms immoral or anything like that, but he does basically agree with the Catholic view that abstinence works best, at least in Africa in particular. Green also downplays the effectiveness of condoms in places like Thailand and Cambodia, saying that other behavior changes may be more responsible than condoms. In African countries that have reduced their HIV prevalence, he gives credit to behavior like having fewer partners.

So I don't find anything illogical or implausible about the abstinence centered view. What matters here seems to be facts. Green seems to think that the evidence shows that in Africa, abstinence education is basically the way to go, and that condom-centric education has been a failure. He also does not see evidence for the effectiveness of condoms in other countries.

Can anyone shed light on this issue, and provide a counterpoint, or links to those who have a response? This issue seems fairly technical, and right now, all I have is opinions from the two sides.

 

[Sledge]

Has anyone ever said that abstinence isn't the most effective method of preventing transmission of an STD?

 

[Chopstick]

Has anyone ever said that abstinence isn't the most effective method of preventing transmission of an STD?

I mean, we can all agree that abstinence on an individual level is 100% effective. What is not 100% effective are government or religious programs that promote abstinence, and that is the real issue it seems. Some people will abstain. Some won't. Is there something a group can do to make more people abstain? If not, assuming some won't abstain, is there a way to protect them by promoting condoms or other alternative behaviors?

I think Green would say that yes, there are effective measures to promote abstinence, and no, there are not good ways to protect people by promoting condoms (and of course Green limits those conclusions to Africa).

 

[Pardalis]

Now the Harvard scientist, Edward Green, doesn't call condoms immoral or anything like that, but he does basically agree with the Catholic view that abstinence works best

But that's not what the Pope said. He said condoms cause AIDS.

Of course abstinence works best, that's a no-brainer, but for people who want to engage in sexual relations, like every other mammal, condoms are still a good way to prevent contracting the disease.

 

[Sledge]

I wonder how effective condom use would have been if the Catholic church hadn't decided to kill vast numbers of people in a horrific way with their lies? See, that's the problem with saying condom promotion hasn't worked: it hasn't been given a fair shot.

 

[Pardalis]

Do we really need a Harvard scientist to tell us that not having sexual relations is the best way not to get sexually transmitted diseases?

Next thing they'll say is that the best way to prevent getting killed in car accidents is to avoid using cars.

 

[thull]

I think abstinence main problem is more of a marketing one. I bet if they rename the it "masturbation", they would get a lot more faithful adherents.

 

[thull]

I think abstinence main problem is more of a marketing one. I bet if they rename the it "masturbation", they would get a lot more faithful adherents.

Though the whole "love your neighbor as you love yourself" bit might cause some confusion.

 

[Roboramma]

Do we really need a Harvard scientist to tell us that not having sexual relations is the best way not to get sexually transmitted diseases?

Next thing they'll say is that the best way to prevent getting killed in car accidents is to avoid using cars.

According to the OP he's saying more than that: he's saying that abstinence education leads to fewer cases of AIDS than does promoting the use of condoms, at least in Africa.

That, to me at least, is surprising, and I had thought the opposite was true.

 

[Pardalis]

According to the OP he's saying more than that: he's saying that abstinence education leads to fewer cases of AIDS than does promoting the use of condoms, at least in Africa.

That, to me at least, is surprising, and I had thought the opposite was true.

He seems to say that people who use condoms don't use it all the time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

One reason is "risk compensation." That is, when people think they're made safe by using condoms at least some of the time, they actually engage in riskier sex.

Another factor is that people seldom use condoms in steady relationships because doing so would imply a lack of trust.

So it's not the use of the condom that is the problem, but its misuse. If they used it all the time the disease wouldn't spread. It's because they use it sometimes, and sometimes not, that it makes it inefficient. The actual use of the condom is not in question.

 

[Chopstick]

But that's not what the Pope said. He said condoms cause AIDS.

I can't really find anything where the pope says that condoms cause AIDS. As far as I've seen, he says that condoms can make the problem worse, and to an extent, Green agrees, citing 'risk compensation' as a possible reason that condoms may make problems worse.

If this is true, which is what I am trying to find out, then I would certainly take a second look at promoting condom use on the government level, which seems to be the most popular method right now in Africa.

 

[Chopstick]

He seems to say that people who use condoms don't use it all the time.

So it's not the use of the condom that is the problem, but its misuse. If they used it all the time the disease wouldn't spread. It's because they use it sometimes, and sometimes not, that it makes it inefficient. The actual use of the condom is not in question.

This seems pretty important. It seems that common ground, as far as I can see, is that condoms do have a protective effect against disease. Now maybe I'm reading the pope's words too generously, but based on other Catholics I've read/talked to, it would seem that they make the point that implementing programs to promote condom usage, as a whole, furthers the problem of AIDS, not that using a condom in one particular sexual encounter makes it more likely to contract AIDS.

If a single couple has sex, it's obvious that a condom will lower the chances of transmitting a disease.
On the national level though, if the government promotes condom usage, it seems more of an open question as to how effective that will be in curbing disease transmission.

 

[Aepervius]

I wonder how effective condom use would have been if the Catholic church hadn't decided to kill vast numbers of people in a horrific way with their lies? See, that's the problem with saying condom promotion hasn't worked: it hasn't been given a fair shot.

That. It is already difficult to educate people to use condom without having inbreed idiot religious torpedo such programs.

Also in addition we have known for a long time that condom protection is not 100%. It is less effective as abstinence, but much more easily doable than abstinence. Also it is much more effective than no-condom, for only a slightly added difficulty.

 

[HansMustermann]

But that's not what the Pope said. He said condoms cause AIDS.

Of course abstinence works best, that's a no-brainer, but for people who want to engage in sexual relations, like every other mammal, condoms are still a good way to prevent contracting the disease.

Actually, nope, that's not really what the pope said. The core of the catholic argument is really just that, in some way or another, condoms fail to prevent AIDS transmission.

 

[Marduk]

How many african rapists use condoms, did the pope tell you that ?

 

[HansMustermann]

That. It is already difficult to educate people to use condom without having inbreed idiot religious torpedo such programs.

Also in addition we have known for a long time that condom protection is not 100%. It is less effective as abstinence, but much more easily doable than abstinence. Also it is much more effective than no-condom, for only a slightly added difficulty.

But less than 100% protection can be a problem, if it's compensated by people engaging in riskier behaviour. If without condom you wouldn't go screw the first prostitute in sight, but with condoms you do, then effectively condoms have increased the risk of contamination.

This is already well documented in other domains.

E.g., people who bought cars with ABS actually end up having more accidents on the average, because they believe it to be better than it actually is, and drive riskier. E.g., closer to the car in front than someone who knows he doesn't have ABS.

E.g., wearing bicycle helmets actually caused people to have more and worse accidents, partially for their own increased recklessness and partially because drivers seem to come on the average a whole 3 inches closer to someone wearing a helmet. You know, oh, he has a helmet, it's not as bad if you accidentally bump your car into him.

There is even a hypothesized Peltzman Effect where each safety measure or regulation is compensated, or sometimes more than compensated, by people acting riskier than without it.

Which is really the core of the Pope's argument.

 

[Fishstick]

The solution isn't perfect, therefore nobody should use it.

 

[DC]

So what is his plan against AIDS? Molesting children?

 

[Cavemonster]

Let's just make sure we understand that the Vatican ban on condoms is not based on the view that condom education is ineffective at creating optimal use, but on very bad science and outright lies about condoms.

In 2003 a senior Vatican official claimed condoms had tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass, exposing thousands of people to risk.

The then head of the Vatican Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, said: "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom."

And it's also a misrepresentation to say that Green agrees with the Pope about condoms

Don't misunderstand me; I am not anti-condom. All people should have full access to condoms, and condoms should always be a backup strategy for those who will not or cannot remain in a mutually faithful relationship.

Whereas the Pope has explicitly banned their use, and contributed to the lack of effectiveness in condom education.

On the surface, Green's argument makes sense, that inconsistent condom use is worse than no condom use, largely because it creates risk compensation. The underlying premise though is that more consistent condom use can't be acheived, which I'd need to see the studies to support. Green himself can point to countries where condom education and condom laws for prostitution made a huge difference in HIV rates.

 

[Marduk]

So what is his plan against AIDS? Molesting children?

Islam is the largest religion in Africa, so the plan is currently disinformation