I've run out of disappointment in conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. In a "webmemo" by Katherine Bradley (what, "blogs" are only for commie-pinkos, Ms. Bradley?), she asserts that the budget included policies that "devalue human life, weaken civil society, and undermine the family".
What draconian policies could be doing this?
- The change in sex education. Bradley WILLFULLY MISREPRESENTS this change, saying that is "defunds the asbstinence-based education program" and puts a "condom-based sex education program" in its place. What is the truth? Peer-reviewed studies have time and time again showed that sex education programs that include a section on condom use are effective. Abstinence-only programs, on the other hand, have only been shown to be effective sometimes- these cases were smaller groups in peer-reviewed studies. With the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting sex education programs, Congress has chosen to mandate that all sex education programs include BOTH abstinence and condom-use components. Abstinence education is still funded and on-going.
- Allowing federal funding to be used for needle exchange. She writes, "Ostensibly to prevent the spread of infection, these programs settle for "harm reduction" rather than overcoming drug addiction." Ostensibly??? It has been PROVEN. Needle exchange programs serve as an important conduit for drug users to access drug addiction treatment programs. A lot of drug users are not ready for treatment services but still have health and social needs that aren't being met otherwise.
- Supporting family planning services domestically and abroad. Use of modern contraceptives improve rates of survival among mothers and their children under 5. Reducing access to family planning services and products would meaningfully contribute to death of mothers and children worldwide and increase the numbers of abortions.
Congress has made an important step to support families with important health and education programs.
Bradley's myopic view and representation of the issues perpetuate rumors and lies that undermine rational discussion. By blindly pushing a political agenda, she devalues the lives of injecting drug users and their families, of American youth, and of mothers and children worldwide. I wish she'd be more Christian, especially during the holiday season.
To read Bradley's article click here
Showing posts with label abstinence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abstinence. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Introduction to Sex, Drugs, and Behavior Change
Note: This blog seeks to find ways to better understand complicated issues of behavior change related to sexual and drug-risk related behavior. Some of the issues brought up in this blog are of a sexual nature or relate to drug use and may include notes that are (intended to be) humorous. If you think any of this may offend you, please do not read.
---
Sex. We talk about it, we joke about it, we dish about it, we brag about it. Sex has many faces, it can be (re)productive, playful, or risky in more ways than one. We like it because it feels good or, in some cases (as John Mellencamp says) it "hurts so good." Yet why do some not use condoms when they know they should?
Hurts so Good by John Mellencamp
Sex is the perfect example of learning about behavior, why we do what we do, and why it changes. There are hundreds of professionals who have spent their careers working on how to change sexual behavior and yet we all still have a lot to learn.
What have we learned from more than 30 years of behavior change activites? Actually, a good amount. We just need to pay attention to what we already "know" and try to figure out what's left.
As an example, reducing sexual risk requires a focus first on condom use and talking to partners. Avoiding or downplaying condoms only hurts us in the end.
Let's think about the abstinence-focused curriculum promoted by well-intentioned but almost willfully ignorant policy makers and misled parents. The resulting change from this strategy in youth sexual behavior has been largely contrary to goals. While some young people are delaying their sexual debut (i.e. when they first have sex), they are NOT waiting until marriage, and many are not using condoms.
We have also learned that education and awareness-building alone do not change everyone's behavior.
Drug (licit and illicit) use also gives us a great example.
In 1950, Richard Doll and A. Bradford Hill conducted a case control study that first gave the world the idea that smoking and lung cancer were linked*. From 1951-2001, Doll, Hill, et al ran a prospective cohort study that followed up doctors over fifty years to see if those who were smokers had higher rates of cancer than those who were non-smokers**. Starting in 1954, articles were published on their findings to date which showed a strong causal relationship between smoking and cancer.**
In the US, an American study with similar results was described in the Reader's Digest article "Cancer by the Carton" in 1952. While there was a decline in smoking after the buzz from this article, many continued smoke and non-users continued to initiate.
While awareness of the dangers of smoking did spur some to quit, other factors were at play. There is, of course, addiction, but that is not the whole story. But what of the numbers who initiated? Cigarette advertising a la "Mad Men" could explain some of this. We live in the era where increasing cigarette taxes and city-wide smoking bans are increasingly used and have seen a measureable decrease in smoking as a result, so that must be part of the answer. As before, the answer is composed of multiple factors, some which we know, some we guess, and others we have yet to find out.
Welcome to Sex, Drugs, and Behavior Change
* Doll R Hill AB "Smoking and Carcinoma of the Lung" British Medical Journal 1950 (2) 739-748
** Doll R, Hill AB "The Mortality of Doctors in Relation to their Smoking Habits" British Medical Journal 1954 (1) 1451-1455
** Doll R, Peto R Boreham J Sutherland I "Mortality in Relation to Smoking: 50 Years' Observation on Male British Doctors" British Medical Journal 2004 328 (7455) 1519
---
Sex. We talk about it, we joke about it, we dish about it, we brag about it. Sex has many faces, it can be (re)productive, playful, or risky in more ways than one. We like it because it feels good or, in some cases (as John Mellencamp says) it "hurts so good." Yet why do some not use condoms when they know they should?
Hurts so Good by John Mellencamp
Sex is the perfect example of learning about behavior, why we do what we do, and why it changes. There are hundreds of professionals who have spent their careers working on how to change sexual behavior and yet we all still have a lot to learn.
What have we learned from more than 30 years of behavior change activites? Actually, a good amount. We just need to pay attention to what we already "know" and try to figure out what's left.
As an example, reducing sexual risk requires a focus first on condom use and talking to partners. Avoiding or downplaying condoms only hurts us in the end.
Let's think about the abstinence-focused curriculum promoted by well-intentioned but almost willfully ignorant policy makers and misled parents. The resulting change from this strategy in youth sexual behavior has been largely contrary to goals. While some young people are delaying their sexual debut (i.e. when they first have sex), they are NOT waiting until marriage, and many are not using condoms.
We have also learned that education and awareness-building alone do not change everyone's behavior.
Drug (licit and illicit) use also gives us a great example.
In 1950, Richard Doll and A. Bradford Hill conducted a case control study that first gave the world the idea that smoking and lung cancer were linked*. From 1951-2001, Doll, Hill, et al ran a prospective cohort study that followed up doctors over fifty years to see if those who were smokers had higher rates of cancer than those who were non-smokers**. Starting in 1954, articles were published on their findings to date which showed a strong causal relationship between smoking and cancer.**
In the US, an American study with similar results was described in the Reader's Digest article "Cancer by the Carton" in 1952. While there was a decline in smoking after the buzz from this article, many continued smoke and non-users continued to initiate.
While awareness of the dangers of smoking did spur some to quit, other factors were at play. There is, of course, addiction, but that is not the whole story. But what of the numbers who initiated? Cigarette advertising a la "Mad Men" could explain some of this. We live in the era where increasing cigarette taxes and city-wide smoking bans are increasingly used and have seen a measureable decrease in smoking as a result, so that must be part of the answer. As before, the answer is composed of multiple factors, some which we know, some we guess, and others we have yet to find out.
Welcome to Sex, Drugs, and Behavior Change
* Doll R Hill AB "Smoking and Carcinoma of the Lung" British Medical Journal 1950 (2) 739-748
** Doll R, Hill AB "The Mortality of Doctors in Relation to their Smoking Habits" British Medical Journal 1954 (1) 1451-1455
** Doll R, Peto R Boreham J Sutherland I "Mortality in Relation to Smoking: 50 Years' Observation on Male British Doctors" British Medical Journal 2004 328 (7455) 1519
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
