Sexual Responsibility Leads to Big Cut in HIV in Zimbabwe
But we're told sexual responsibility isn't possible, only condoms work.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011, 12:02 AM
Wesley J. Smith
The general ABC approach seems to be working in another African country in fighting AIDS–this time Zimbabwe.
A=abstinence. B=Be Monogamous. C=If you can’t do A or B, use condoms. From the story:
HIV prevalence in Zimbabwe has declined remarkably in recent years, dropping from 26% to 14% between 1997 and 2009. In a recent edition of the journal PLoS Medicine, researchers explored the reasons for this decline and examined what lessons can be learned and replicated.
Sponsored by UNFPA, UNAIDS and the Zimbabwean Ministry of Health and Child Welfare, the study pinpointed several key factors in Zimbabwe’s success. These include changes in sexual behaviour, personal experiences related to the high AIDS mortality in the country and correct information about HIV transmission. “The behaviour changes associated with the HIV decline appear to be largely the result of people increasingly talking about HIV and its link to risky sexual behaviour,” said Clemens Benedikt, HIV prevention manager in the UNFPA office in Zimbabwe and one of the authors of the report. The most significant cause of the decline was seen to be the reduction in multiple sexual partnerships, with a 30% fall in men reporting extra-marital relationships.
We saw the same results in Uganda–until it began to fade as the C option overrode the A and the B.
Zimbabwe, and Uganda before it, prove that people can be sexually responsible when that becomes the societal expectation. That’s a lesson that could be taken to heart in situations other than, and in areas far beyond, fighting a deadly disease in Africa.
firstthings.com
--------------------------------
Of Uganda, AIDS, Abstinence, and Circumcision
Monday, July 20, 2009, 12:19 PM
Wesley J. Smith
I don’t think the Western media cover the catastrophe of African Aids nearly enough. And I think the lessons learned there are also ignored. First, when Uganda actively promoted ABC–abstinence, be faithful, but if if not those, use condoms–HIV infection rates plumetted. That makes sense. Condoms are not “safer sex,” as our AIDS activists and press so often put it to, but “less safe sex,” since infections still occur when condoms are used. Abstinence or sex with a mutually monogamous uninfected partner are the only sure ways to prevent sexually transmitted AIDS. When Uganda’s president and public health sector actively pushed abstinence and monogamy, it worked. And, with far fewer people engaging in dangerous behavior, the condom aspect helped as well.
But, as I recall, much criticism was directed at this approach, CNN (not the news network) advocated as the alternative–start with “condoms” (which assumes people won’t be abstinent or monogomous), needle exchange (a different matter, not relevant here) and “negotiation,” teaching individuals how to negotiate with their partners about condom use and other decisions that impact HIV transmission. But this doesn’t work when the virus is spread widely throughout society:
According to the UNAIDS report, “There are no definite examples yet of generalized epidemics that have been turned back by prevention programs based primarily on condom promotion.” The report does however say that condom use is effective especially if used together with other prevention methods of abstinence and faithfulness.
That makes sense to me: If you expect people to not control their urges, they won’t.
Alas, the Uganda success story is fading now with a return to soaring of infection rates. From the story:
After a dramatic fall in the incidence of HIV/Aids in Uganda in the 1990s, the pandemic is spreading again in the east African country, a government report released this week showed. A little over 90 000 people contracted the HIV virus in 2008, nudging the infection rate to 6.4% from 6% four years ago, The New Vision newspaper on Thursday quoted the report that was released by the presidency on Tuesday as saying
One cause cited in the story, an increase in laxity toward the A and the B.
Now, in other news, a study has shown that circumcision helps prevent transmission of HIV to men from infected women, rebutting those advocates like Dr. Dean Edell, who castigate the practice as having no practical health value. From the story:
Circumcision may help protect men from the AIDS virus but it does not protect the wives and female partners of infected men, researchers reported on Thursday. The disappointed researchers had to stop the trial, which they had hoped would confirm early suggestions that circumcision would protect men and women alike. But, they said, circumcision is so effective in protecting men that will still likely benefit women indirectly by reducing circulation of the virus in general.
Here’s a story of the S. African government’s failure to promote circumcision, just the latest in its many abject failures to combat HIV. (This brings to mind when I keynoted a bioethics conference in Capetown with a speech against assisted suicide, in which I brought up the question of whether people with AIDS in S. Africa would be treated or killed. I was followed by the head of the South African Medical Association who powerfully denounced his government’s AIDS policies as “genocide.”)
AIDS is the health tragedy of our time. Alas, the politics of the disease–which angrily eschews anything that can be perceived as judgmentalism or moralizing–too often, as I see it, has mattered more than focusing on best methods of saving lives.
firstthings.com
....
Grace
July 21st, 2009 | 9:18 am
I worked as a physician with HIV patients on South Beach in Florida for some time. I was shocked at how dangerous were the PC attitudes of the HIV clinics. NEVER did they suggest in their pamphlets, posters, etc, even moderation in the number of partners, even for infected men and women. Instead, condoms, dental dams, etc. It was entirely expected that the target audience was wildly promiscous, and that this was “ok”.
Granted, homosexual men are generally wildly promiscuous, but how could they NOT suggest the only “safe” approach: abstinence and faithfulness? I was especially scared by the implied acceptance that infected men and women were also promiscuous, and rightly so. <b<It was considered INSULTING to suggest to an infected man that he should abstain, in the hopes of stopping infection.
Just wear a condom. HAH! As a physician, I’ve encountered umpteen pregnancies as a result of misused or torn condoms. Condoms aren’t a panacea, they are a thin film of rubber. Makes me fume. I had to stop working for those idiots, who were so concerned for their HIV patients, but not concerned enough to actually stop the rate of infection. Infection in South Beach has increased and increased and I’m not surprised.
Just another way liberal "values" kill. |
