LETTERS From CAMP Rehoboth |
CAMP Safe |
by Salvatore Seeley |
Are Condoms Ineffective?
If you have been keeping up with the news in the past few days, you might have caught a whiff of this headline, "Condoms may not prevent people from catching STD's." I am deeply troubled by the spin some folks are taking on the new condom effectiveness report. I saw that headline and thought, here's another way the Bush White House is going to spread its sexphobic views and push for a federal-based abstinence-only agenda. We all know how effective those have beenabstinence fails more often than condoms. Abstinence, like a condom, is only effective when it is consistently used as a means of STD and HIV prevention. Men and women should have access to both. The report that was released on Thursday, says, "the absence of definitive conclusions...should not be interpreted as proof of the adequacy or inadequacy of the condom to reduce the risk of STDs other than HIV transmission in men and women, and gonorrhea in men. To definitely answer the remaining questions about condom effectiveness for preventing STD infections will require well-designed and ethically sound clinical studies." Looking at this report I thought to myself that there was no new information released. The risk of acquiring any disease spread through genital secretions can be effectively reduced through consistent and correct condom use. Obviously, a condom can't protect what it doesn't cover or touch. But it can protect against the infectious nasties in genital secretions. There are many reasons why the report is flawed and why I believe it to be incorrect: Many studies lacked a sufficient number of subjects to have adequate statistical power to evaluate condom effectiveness. Many studies were done in special populations, such as commercial sex workers or STD clinic patients who are at far higher risk for infection than are other sexually active individuals, therefore limiting how the results can be generalized to other populations. Most studies did not use optimal interview methods to gather accurate information, especially with regard to sexual histories and condom usage. Many studies did not distinguish between correct and incorrect condom use. Slippage and breakage events were not quantified and some studies measured only if a condom was "ever" used. The report also states that even though condoms prevent the spread of HIV and gonorrhea, there's not enough data to conclude they protect against other sexually transmitted diseases. "To definitely answer the remaining questions about condom effectiveness for preventing STD infections will require well-designed and ethically sound clinical studies," the report stated. It is clear from the report that condoms are effective in reducing the risk of HIV infection and gonorrhea in men. This fact alone is important. Dr. Willard Cates Jr., president of Family Health International of Research Triangle Park, N.C., a reproductive health research group, says the report "was actually really good news" about how well condoms work, since the study shows that they prevent transmission of HIV, the most serious STD, and gonorrhea, the most common sex infection next to chlamydia. Cates said the lack of research data on condoms' ability to protect against some STDs does not mean that they are ineffective against those diseases. Laboratory studies have shown that even viruses the tiniest disease-causing organisms do not pass through latex condoms. However, Cates said, it is difficult to carry out studies that measure condoms' effectiveness against each individual sexually transmitted infection. In any case, absence of any definite proof that condoms do not prevent all STDs should not be taken as a reason to dispense with their use. Beyond mutual lifelong monogamy among uninfected couples, condom use is the only method for reducing the risk of HIV infection and STDs available to sexually active individuals. This is where the Bush administration may use the federal report as politically motivated support for promoting "abstinence only" sex education programs. Recently, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson granted $17 million for such programs throughout all 50 states. So, it's a battle to be fought with the Bush White House and another push for right-wing sexphobic views. It would be a horrendous mistake for policy makers to discourage condom use. Supporting abstinence is important, but at some point individuals become sexually active. This is the same message then Surgeon General C. Everett Koop delivered 15 years ago when he said the best protection, barring abstinence, was the correct and consistent use of a latex condom. This message is still true and to spin the report any other way runs the risk of dissuading condom use by sexually active persons and could result in new HIV infections. As sexually active gay men we can't allow this to happen. We need to take responsibility and protect ourselves and our community against any further breakout of HIV and STD's by using condoms. Sal Seeley, Program Director of the Gay Men's Health Project of CAMP Rehoboth, may be reached at SalvatoreSeeley@aol.com. |
LETTERS From CAMP Rehoboth, Vol. 11, No. 10, July 27, 2001. |