 |
Abstinence is saying yes to the rest of your life. |
|
|
This is the background on the organizations that the DOH is willing to use as experts on abstinence education presentations.
Medical Organizations—View of Abstinence
CDC The only info on their web site is about contraceptives, nothing about abstinence. http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/drh/up.htm The CDC links HPV to cervical cancer. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/nbccedp/info-cc.htm
National Institutes of Health This link is for the NIH info on a grant for Abstinence and HIV/STD Prevention for Youth. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-MH-99-010.html
American Public Health Association They would appear to strongly support the comprehensive* approach: http://www.apha.org/sections/newsletters/sheswinter2001.htm http://www.apha.org/journal/nation/sexedexcls1201.htm At their annual meeting Nov. 12-16, 2000 a presentation was given entitled: Abstinence As a Contraceptive Method: The Need to Develop Abstinence-User Failure Rates (Clara S. Haignere). http://www.apha.org/sections/newsletters/populationfall2000.htm
American Academy of Pediatrics They seem to support abstinence and contraceptive education. http://www.aap.org/mrt/sex.htm Contraception and Adolescents. Interesting article, but makes the statement: “There is no evidence that refusal to provide contraception to an adolescent results in abstinence or postponement of sexual activity,” but then they state that abstinence is the most effective birth control method (see paragraph on Abstinence). They also support the notion that condoms significantly reduce the risk of STD’s. They recommend that pediatricians promote abstinence as much as possible, but then suggest they provide contraceptive services also. http://www.aap.org/policy/re9841.html Policy statement: Sexuality Education for Children and Adolescents. Makes the statement: “Abstinence-only programs have not demonstrated successful outcomes with regard to delayed initiation of sexual activity or use of safer sex practices.” They support the comprehensive approach, but their policy is contradictory, because they also make the statement, “Abstinence should be promoted as the most effective strategy for preventing HIV infection and other STDs as well as for prevention of pregnancy.” http://www.aap.org/policy/0068.html They have quite a few policy statements on their web site regarding teen pregnancy and sex education. You can find a number of them by doing a search with “abstinence” in the search line. They also have a policy statement that affirms the right of the adolescent to confidential care when considering an abortion: http://www.aap.org/policy/01348.html
Society for Public Health Education One of their special interests groups is Children, Adolescents and School, but they don’t have anything on their web site that addresses sex education. Resolutions include: 2001 Resolution on Eliminating Health Disparities Based on Sexual Orientation.
American Psychological Association They support the view that there is not enough evidence that abstinence-only programs work in a Dec. 1999 article. The article mentions that Congress was supposed to study the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs. The report was supposed to be available by August 2001. Was that study ever done? http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec99/pi1.html They believe that “Parental notification and consent laws can have harmful psychological and health consequences for the minors affected by these laws. By restricting adolescent access to confidential contraceptive services, these laws can result in an increased number of unintended pregnancies.” http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/pparentalconsent.html Their resolution on sexuality education states: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the APA supports access to information on sexuality as critical to healthy development. Such information should be positive, age appropriate, and culturally suitable, and should respect the choice of abstinence; it should acknowledge women's rights, should foster shared responsibility among males and females for sexual behaviors, and should promote tolerance for sexual diversity; and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that APA public policy support the development and adoption, including research and evaluation, of such comprehensive sexuality education curricula and programs for the promotion of healthy sexual attitudes and behaviors and the prevention and mitigation of endangering and destructive behaviors. It is to be noted that this resolution does not endorse any particular curriculum, procedure, or site for instruction [, but seeks to promote a choice of means for implementing this resolution]. (February 1996) http://www.apa.org/pi/hivres.html
American Medical Association Support for comprehensive approach to risk-reduction interventions for African-American adolescents. Their conclusion is: “Both abstinence and safer-sex interventions can reduce HIV sexual risk behaviors, but safer-sex interventions may be especially effective with sexually experienced adolescents and may have longer-lasting effects.” They also say, “evidence for the efficacy of abstinence interventions is meager.” However, some of the data in the study would suggest otherwise. http://www.ama-assn.org/special/std/library/readroom/vol_279/joc80091.htm This link is to letters to the editor in JAMA responding to the above study and subsequent editorial. One is written by two doctors affiliated with FRC that mentions data in the study that appears to support abstinence education. Another is written by Richard Panzer of Free Teens in support of abstinence education. The replies to the letters defend their conclusions of course. The reply to Mr. Panzer is especially telling: “The comments by Mr. Panzer need clarification. First, the central theme of the Editorial questioned the exclusivity of the Welfare Reform Act. It is not that abstinence programs would not be a valuable strategy, they would. However, providing unprecedented federal funding for abstinence-only education in the absence of empirical evidence that such programs are effective seems unwarranted. Second, Panzer offers no empirical support for abstinence-only programs. Even though he presents relevant and valuable observational data, it seems inappropriate to equate findings derived from observational studies with data derived from a randomized controlled trial. “Moreover, there are few data to suggest that abstinence-only programs are likely to be effective in convincing many sexually active youth to abstain from sex. And although not 100% effective, appropriate and consistent condom use does afford a high degree of protection from STIs. Thus, the Editorial questioned the rationale for earmarking funds exclusively for the dissemination of unproven abstinence programs while not permitting the use of these funds for the dissemination of other, more effective comprehensive sexuality programs that provide adolescents with much-needed prevention information and risk-reduction skills.” http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v281n16/ffull/jlt0428-1.html A JAMA article entitled, “Preventing Sexually Transmitted Infections Among Adolescents,” talks about the supposed clash between ideology and science. The following statement from the article reveals their position: “Given the weight of scientific evidence demonstrating the efficacy of safer-sex interventions and the absence of clear and compelling data demonstrating a significant and consistent treatment advantage for abstinence programs, it is difficult to understand the logic behind the decision to earmark funds specifically for abstinence programs. Unfortunately, much of the public health policy debate appears to have been ideologically motivated rather than empirically driven. However, no matter how widespread, politically viable, or popular a program may be, efficacy in preventing and modifying behaviors associated with STI/HIV must remain the primary criterion by which programs are judged. Any public health policy that constrains the range of STI/HIV-intervention options severely reduces the programmatic flexibility needed to design and implement effective programs. “To promote the health of adolescents, public health policy should be empirically driven, not ideologically motivated. Ideologically motivated policy decisions may inadvertently cause a grave disservice to our youth, many of whom are ill-equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to reduce high-risk sexual behaviors. In the end, we risk jeopardizing the health and well-being of a generation of youth.” http://www.ama-assn.org/special/hiv/library/readroom/jama98/ed80035x.htm This Newsline item in JAMA from the CDC strongly criticizes abstinence-only education. Includes criticism from NIH: “A panel convened by the National Institutes of Health 3 years ago also said the programs are an obstacle to reducing teenagers’ risky behaviors.” http://www.ama-assn.org/special/hiv/newsline/cdc/122800g2.htm This editorial in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine encourages the use of emergency contraception. http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/issues/v152n8/ffull/ped8117.html They say we need empirical evidence yet they believe that the post abortion stress disorder is a myth. http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v283n12/ffull/jlt0322-3.html Comprehensive sex education is endorsed by the AMA. “Specifically, the CSA (Council on Scientific Affairs) concluded that abstinence-only programs are of very limited value and require additional, rigorous evaluation before they can be supported as a method for changing students’ risky practices. ‘What we found is that abstinence-only programs have been poorly studied,’ said Nancy Nielsen, MD, PhD, a CSA member. ‘There’s no evidence of efficacy,’ she added.” “Safer-sex programs that are comprehensive in nature, however, show promise with respect to changing student attitudes, according to the report. The council also found evidence that students do utilize school-based condom availability programs but that these programs do not hasten the initiation of sexual intercourse.” What evidence? http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/amnews/pick_00/hlsf0103.htm A CDC news item from Jan. 9, 2001 states, “Some adults in their 20s and 30s are abstaining from sexual intercourse, according to new research. Reasons for their abstinence vary, ranging from religious beliefs to the fear of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. According to Edward O. Laumann, coauthor of ‘Sex in America: A Definitive Study,’ only about 2% of the population has not had sex by age 30. He notes that while anecdotal evidence points to people being more accepting of sex before marriage, sexual morality and abstinence-based sex education programs have also received a great deal of attention in recent years. Dr William Emener, chairman of the rehabilitation and mental health counseling department at the University of South Florida in Tampa, points out that many young adults are becoming more aware of the health and relationship matters faced by the previous generations and are trying to avoid issues, such as divorce or HIV infection, that may have affected the lives of their parents or older friends.” What is this new research? I thought there was no empirical evidence? http://www.ama-assn.org/special/hiv/newsline/cdc/010901g2.htm A Jan. 4, 2001 CDC news item says, “Virginity Pledges by Teenagers Can Be Highly Effective, Federal Study Finds.” http://www.ama-assn.org/special/hiv/newsline/cdc/010401g1.htm
*comprehensive means presenting birth control plus other forms of sexual behavior.
|
