Aids, Condoms and the Catholic Church

[Gregory]

There is a nice controversial talk titled:

Aids, Condoms and the Catholic Church, by Father Stephen Langridge
Canmore, 24 The Scores opp St James Church
8pm, Wednesday 11th of March

All are welcome.

[Gregory]

Are there any examples of countries where Hiv and AIDs have fallen due to condom distribution?

[the Empress]

As condoms reduce the transmission of HIV, then yes, those using them regularly will be less likely to contract it. Studies I'm familiar with were conducted in Ethiopia, in which female prostitutes were given femadoms, thus reducing risk to themselves, their clients and their clients' wives.

The barrier to condom usage maybe attitudinal rather than distrubtional. The women themselves had no problem using condoms but their clients refused to do so. Hence they were able to take more control using femadoms with pre-insertion. Further, it was suggested that femadom's could increase female sexual pleasure, and this appealed to the ego of the male client.

NB I could link these studies but the references are saved on my old laptop hard drive. There's tones of them so they're not hard to find though.

[Gregory]

Do studies of Uganda and Phillipines not illustrate a better way of tackling the problem?

Ethiopia had 2.5 million people infected with HIV in 2007 http://www.etharc.org/aidscampaign/statistics.htm

Compare philipines and thailand... one abstinence only, fewer than 2,000 people living with aids, whereas in Thailand with there 100% condom scheme it is just under 900,000 at last count
(Rene Josef Bullecer Telling the Truth: AIDS Rates for Thailand and the Philippines)

Is there a country who had introduced a condom distribution program and seen a significant reduction in cases of hiv?

[Gregory]

Forgot to mention Uganda, which has been successful due to, in large part, missionaries promoting abstinence.

Condoms were in distribution till 2005, but tests showed they were only 95% effective - which is a few percent lower than Western counterparts. This statistic coupled with the typical lifestyle of one who has no-consequences sex (taken to be one new partner every month, one time... a conservative estimate) means that even were you to take 96% to be a figure of effectiveness, after 18 months the person would have a 50% chance of having contracted HIV.

Personally I find propogating programs with such odds as being "safe" irresponsible, especially in conditions where a large proportion of society already has aids/hiv, unlike the uk ...

[Senethro]

Thats cute. Given the long incubation period there probably isn't any country which has seen an absolute reduction in number of cases.

Now contrast how AIDS spreads in countries where condom usage is culturally ingrained prior to having a high HIV+ population.

The problem is that some cultures are resistant to condom usage, not that condoms are ineffective.

[Gregory]

Not sure that is entirely accurate given that those countries most affected by AIDs were the same ones where the pandemic started, nearby at least, and furthermore their healthcare arrangements would have meant that its doubtful they would be diagnosed. Its not as if 20% of our population has hiv is it?

[Andy Monkey B]

Do studies of Uganda and Phillipines not illustrate a better way of tackling the problem?

Ethiopia had 2.5 million people infected with HIV in 2007 http://www.etharc.org/aidscampaign/statistics.htm

Compare philipines and thailand... one abstinence only, fewer than 2,000 people living with aids, whereas in Thailand with there 100% condom scheme it is just under 900,000 at last count
(Rene Josef Bullecer Telling the Truth: AIDS Rates for Thailand and the Philippines)

Wait one second there, you haven't normalised the data. Or in fact subjected it to any statistical measures of significance. You've just provided us with a bunch of meaningless numbers.

OK so the problem you're getting at (but have missed slightly), is that in thought experiment, while condoms are a barrier to HIV transmission, they are usually only 95% effective. This should cut down transmission by 95% (although in repetitive sex with a single partner, this is a little null anyway). However it is reasonable to assume that when people are assured of less consequences (or dangerously, no consequences) of sexual intercourse, they are likely to have more sex with more partners. The question is then whether on average the rate of intercourse with different partners increases the risk more than the use of condoms reduces it (an increase of sexual partners by >20x). This is where the studies come in. Only studies with proper scientific methodology and correct use of statistics are acceptable as evidence as well.

However the moral problem arises with the suspected motives behind such a campaign. It would seem that the Catholic church is more concerned with condemning promiscuous sex, and alongside that it's second favourite target of condoms. In this case, the Catholic church seems less concerned about stopping the spread of AIDS and more concerned with the use of it to scare people away from promiscuous sex. The same seemed to appear around the HPV vaccination scheme for girls.

Maybe its a problem with the theology here then, a belief that if they stop people from having sex then those people will get to heaven. Unfortunately thats theologically balls.

[Frank]

I came here in search for the divine, but all I found were spirits...

[the Empress]

I don't know why I bother, but . . . the example I gave you was based on small-scale studies about effective intervention using condoms, which illustrates that intervention is not only based on condom distribution but attitude (i.e. will they be used, and if so, how often), not on any scheme covering the entirety of Ethopia. Female prostitutes are implicated in the spread of HIV within cities because many male clients refuse to use protection. Abstinence in this case is not an option. Men in that case then go on to infect other partners. Most of the information you've given lacks any real consideration for how HIV is spread within particular countries which will determine effective intervention, or the historic spread of disease within a particular country, as Senethro points out. Your scenario of abstinence seems bizarre. Women may be infected by their own spouse or children may be born with it (I'm not saying that women can't infect men though). HIV is also a social stigma in places, which may prevent people from seeking treatment (and thus be included within figures). Certainly, the whole 'you had sex now you have HIV. Sinner!' attitude seems singulalry unhelpful. It is difficult to compare the spread of HIV in Africa and western countries because the pathways of disease transmission are different due to historical and sociological circumstances.

Forgot to mention Uganda, which has been successful due to, in large part, missionaries promoting abstinence.

Condoms were in distribution till 2005, but tests showed they were only 95% effective . . This statistic coupled with the typical lifestyle of one who has no-consequences sex (taken to be one new partner every month, one time... a conservative estimate) means that even were you to take 96% to be a figure of effectiveness, after 18 months the person would have a 50% chance of having contracted HIV.

Personally I find propogating programs with such odds as being "safe" irresponsible, especially in conditions where a large proportion of society already has aids/hiv, unlike the uk ...

[starsandsparkles]

I came here in search for the divine, but all I found were spirits...

I think I have found a new Catholic Society slogan...

[Frank]

I came here in search for the divine, but all I found were spirits...

I think I have found a new Catholic Society slogan...

Amusingly, the church in the short story The Last Church appears to be a Catholic church, so I'm sure it'd be an appropriate acquisition!

A recommendable tagline for any drinking events would be: "At last, a spirit I can believe in!"

[Lid]

Forgot to mention Uganda, which has been successful due to, in large part, missionaries promoting abstinence.

Condoms were in distribution till 2005, but tests showed they were only 95% effective - which is a few percent lower than Western counterparts. This statistic coupled with the typical lifestyle of one who has no-consequences sex (taken to be one new partner every month, one time... a conservative estimate) means that even were you to take 96% to be a figure of effectiveness, after 18 months the person would have a 50% chance of having contracted HIV.

Personally I find propogating programs with such odds as being "safe" irresponsible, especially in conditions where a large proportion of society already has aids/hiv, unlike the uk ...

In rank of safety to AIDS (NOT AIDs, stop it, it's annoying):
* Never being born
* Never having a guy put it in you, or girl put it round you
* Wearing a condom
* Fucking everything in sight.

The whole NHS marketing campaign was surrounding 'safer' sex, not 'safe' sex. The only completely safe sex is arguably with your right hand, although this gives the left hand a bad reputation, but that's against the Catholic preachings too.

A study that I once had hold of when a condom distributor said that under 1% of kite-marked condoms when applied correctly failed. It's not perfect, that's why it's safer sex, not safe sex, as the reference point should be without a condom, not no sex. An option here is to expand sex education and add more stringent controls to third world condoms.

Personally, if people want to go the abstinence route, fair enough. However it's a bit like the temperance movement: tell someone it's bad and/or sinful, and for quite a lot of people their lust for doing it doesn't decrease, and in many cases increases. I much prefer a 'you're probably going to do it anyway, because it feels really nice, so if you do, put one of these on, as it makes you die less, k' approach.

As Senethro said, you don't just get HIV and then catch fire and die, so any studies into lowering of transmission rates would need to be conducted in a longer term than data we presently have available.

[LonelyPilgrim]

A friend of mine who worked on AIDS education programs in Latin America (Belize, in particular) for the UN, reported that the primary stumbling block in the program was the refusal of the locals to accept that HIV is transmitted through sex. Their belief was simply that "God wills it". AIDS, in their mind, was a disease sent by God to punish the unworthy, and therefore no earthly power, ie. condom, could stop the spread. The corollary being that a 'good' person needn't fear catching it at all, so who needs protection?

Ergo, handing out all the condoms in the world wouldn't do a bit of good because they wouldn't be utilised. Nevermind their effectiveness. A condom not used has a failure rate of 100%.

Speaking of failure rates... where is the 99% effective statistic coming from? That's more effective than condoms' abilities to prevent pregnancy... which is 98%, with proper use (85% in the real world). I hardly see how they can be MORE effective at stopping HIV transmission than they are at preventing pregnancy...

[Diesel]

85%!?!? That can't be right. I should have at LEAST one illegitimate child by now!

[Lid]

85%!?!? That can't be right. I should have at LEAST one illegitimate child by now!

Maybe you're just pro at putting a hat on.

[Garnet]

Uganda's success has unlikely been caused by telling everyone not to have sex, but instead by the presidents open and frank way of discussing it and so educating people on the real causes, unlike of course those moron politicians in south Africa and other countries. Therefore more people in Uganda know there is no cure, that it can be transmitted by sex and that condoms can help prevent it. I think though now there is a real problem starting in Uganda because the abstinence groups have latched on to Uganda as a success story apparently caused just by the abstinence campaign, when in fact the full campaign that the Ugandan government undertook was Abstinence, Be faithful and Condoms. So with funding only available to the government if they don't accept funding else where for condoms this has resulted in less condom distribution and signs of the rate increasing.

I'm slightly torn on the abstinence issue as I feel that it might be good for females, as at least in the information i've read it did tend to be accepted in some societies for men to sleep around but not women. Then again what right the US government, the catholic church etc have to tell Africans what to do with their private lives

[Monkey once again]

85%!?!? That can't be right. I should have at LEAST one illegitimate child by now!

Maybe you're just pro at putting a hat on.

Mabye you're just not man enough

[Hennessy]

85%!?!? That can't be right. I should have at LEAST one illegitimate child by now!

Maybe you're just pro at putting a hat on.

Mabye you're just not man enough

Better get that checked Diesel, I have at least eight bastards in fourteen countries, and about six months until bits start dropping off.

[RedCelt69]

I'm slightly torn on the abstinence issue as I feel that it might be good for females, as at least in the information i've read it did tend to be accepted in some societies for men to sleep around but not women.

Who are the men sleeping around with, if not women? Africa... the Dark Continent... where men are men and goats are nervous.