Lancet article

[david_house]

I would like comments on the article in the “Lancet” yesterday which dealt with the Pope’s recent coments on condom use. For those of you not familiar with the “Lancet” it is probably the most well regarded medical journal in the world. It is totally unpolitical and it’s views are always serious and well thought out. It is widely read in the medical profession. To read the full article you must first subscribe, which I encourage anyone with a real wish to understand to do.
For those who just want the essence of the points made I suggest you visit:-

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7967173.stm

I am sure you can also find other news media coverage of this article.
My own view is that the “Lancet” article has it exactly right and that the current attitude of the Pope, and all those who follow him, is hugely harmful to millions of people. The RC stance is naive and unrealistic. It is all very well having high principals that only a few can attain. In the meantime people die unnecessarily. It’s more than sad, it is almost criminal and I so hope that you manage to lift your heads from the sand and realise that sometimes, just sometimes, you are not right.

 

[diggerdomer]

I would like comments on the article in the “Lancet” yesterday which dealt with the Pope’s recent coments on condom use. For those of you not familiar with the “Lancet” it is probably the most well regarded medical journal in the world. It is totally unpolitical and it’s views are always serious and well thought out. It is widely read in the medical profession. To read the full article you must first subscribe, which I encourage anyone with a real wish to understand to do.
For those who just want the essence of the points made I suggest you visit:-

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7967173.stm

I am sure you can also find other news media coverage of this article.
My own view is that the “Lancet” article has it exactly right and that the current attitude of the Pope, and all those who follow him, is hugely harmful to millions of people. The RC stance is naive and unrealistic. It is all very well having high principals that only a few can attain. In the meantime people die unnecessarily. It’s more than sad, it is almost criminal and I so hope that you manage to lift your heads from the sand and realise that sometimes, just sometimes, you are not right.

Thank you for the question, and the solid references.

As a Catholic, I accept Church teaching on these issues. That being said…

There’s no question that the issue of using condoms to prevent AIDS has been discussed in the Catholic Church (though most likely it’s unfortunately been rather “hush-hush”). Given that reality, change to the status quo is obviously possible.

I completely agree with the Church’s stance on sexual ethics. I do not think compromising or sacrificing those principles outright is a legitimate response to the obvious problem of AIDS.

Something, of course, needs to be done. I don’t think this means the Catholic Church principles are not right. It does mean, though, I think, that they need to be strongly examined to determine how best they can applied in this (tragic?) situation.

Thank you again.

 

[RobbyS]

I would like comments on the article in the “Lancet” yesterday which dealt with the Pope’s recent coments on condom use. For those of you not familiar with the “Lancet” it is probably the most well regarded medical journal in the world. It is totally unpolitical and it’s views are always serious and well thought out. It is widely read in the medical profession. To read the full article you must first subscribe, which I encourage anyone with a real wish to understand to do.
For those who just want the essence of the points made I suggest you visit:-

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7967173.stm

I am sure you can also find other news media coverage of this article.
My own view is that the “Lancet” article has it exactly right and that the current attitude of the Pope, and all those who follow him, is hugely harmful to millions of people. The RC stance is naive and unrealistic. It is all very well having high principals that only a few can attain. In the meantime people die unnecessarily. It’s more than sad, it is almost criminal and I so hope that you manage to lift your heads from the sand and realise that sometimes, just sometimes, you are not right.

The Lancet makes claims that it does not substantiate. You now claim for the condom an effect on the spread of AIDS that is simply not true. At least those who support ABC acknowledge that it is a waste of money simply to dump billions on condoms on a population unwilling to use them or unable to use them properly. That would include a lot of Americans. It’s a birth control devise. only moderately effective in preventing the apread of STDs.

 

[graceandglory]

Hi david house.
I’m just gonna guess you haven’t read the Pope’s words.

Here is a bit from the article you posted:

But the London-based Lancet said the Pope had “publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue”.

It said the male latex condom was the single most efficient way to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV/Aids.

“Whether the Pope’s error was due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology is unclear,” said the journal.

The Pope insists that the African people have dignity and should be not be treated like animals who have no self control, but as human beings with a God-given freedom of will.

**The Lancet says:
** the male latex condom was the single most efficient way to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV/Aids.
**
The Pope says:
Not having sex with someone who has HIV or AIDS IS MORE EFFECTIVE than using a condom to have sex with someone who is infected.

Now do you get it? All your article proves is that the Lancet can be biased too.**

 

[RobbyS]

Hi david house.
I’m just gonna guess you haven’t read the Pope’s words.

Here is a bit from the article you posted:

The Pope insists that the African people have dignity and should be not be treated like animals who have no self control, but as human beings with a God-given freedom of will.

**The Lancet says:
** the male latex condom was the single most efficient way to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV/Aids.

---

The Pope says:
Not having sex with someone who has HIV or AIDS IS MORE EFFECTIVE than using a condom to have sex with someone who is infected.

Now do you get it? All your article proves is that the Lancet can be biased too.

If our appetite for food cannot be controlled, then the assumption is that something is wrong with US, not the appetite.

 

[david_house]

I am puzzled by some of these responses. As I said the “Lancet” is a respected serious journal. They are not sensationalist and their remarks deserve a considered and well argued response, not just “they are wrong”.
I read the Pope’s remarks and do not agree with them. Of course not having sex with an infected person is the best protection, as is not having sex the best form of birth control. No-one argues with that, however that is NOT the debate. It is simply unrealistic to expect the majority of people to comply with such a requirement, especially the poor and ignorant. In the real world people do have sex, do have multiple partners, do get drunk and beat up their wives or force themselves upon them. The last three regrettable and sinful. Just confessing on Sunday does not though remove the long term effects. Only the RC church hold the view that condoms do not protect, and I have yet to see any genuine scientific research which substantiates that viewpoint. A little from doubtful sources but the huge body of scientific opinion is that they are a useful tool in the fight against AIDS.
I continue to believe you are being naive and unrealistic. I “get it” very well, but it is obvious that some of the respondees only see things from one very biased viewpoint which they have been spoonfed and swallowed whole. I encourage them to step back, reflect on everyone’s words, not just the Pope’s, and come to a really thoughful considered view. This is much too important to be treated as simply theoretical dogma. Real people are dying when they could be saved BY YOU!!!

 

[Cracker_Mom]

I am puzzled by some of these responses. As I said the “Lancet” is a respected serious journal. They are not sensationalist and their remarks deserve a considered and well argued response, not just “they are wrong”.
I read the Pope’s remarks and do not agree with them. Of course not having sex with an infected person is the best protection, as is not having sex the best form of birth control. No-one argues with that, however that is NOT the debate. It is simply unrealistic to expect the majority of people to comply with such a requirement, especially the poor and ignorant. In the real world people do have sex, do have multiple partners, do get drunk and beat up their wives or force themselves upon them. The last three regrettable and sinful. Just confessing on Sunday does not though remove the long term effects. Only the RC church hold the view that condoms do not protect, and I have yet to see any genuine scientific research which substantiates that viewpoint. A little from doubtful sources but the huge body of scientific opinion is that they are a useful tool in the fight against AIDS.
I continue to believe you are being naive and unrealistic. I “get it” very well, but it is obvious that some of the respondees only see things from one very biased viewpoint which they have been spoonfed and swallowed whole. I encourage them to step back, reflect on everyone’s words, not just the Pope’s, and come to a really thoughful considered view. This is much too important to be treated as simply theoretical dogma. Real people are dying when they could be saved BY YOU!!!

The logic here is kind of skewed & would be funny if not about such a tragic issue.
Do you really expect people who “get drunk,beat up their wives or force themselves upon them” to take the time before the violent act to properly use a condom? Right.

 

[RedGecko]

I am puzzled by some of these responses. As I said the “Lancet” is a respected serious journal. They are not sensationalist and their remarks deserve a considered and well argued response, not just “they are wrong”.

hmmmm…maybe. The editorial itself offers no evidence, so there seems little reason to discuss. But since the editorial is only four paragraphs, why not give it a go?

The Catholic Church’s ethical opposition to birth control and support of marital fidelity and abstinence in HIV prevention is well known. But, by saying that condoms exacerbate the problem of HIV/AIDS, the Pope has publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue.

The international community was quick to condemn the comment. The governments of Germany, France, and Belgium released statements criticising the Pope’s views. Julio Montaner, president of the International AIDS Society, called the comment “irresponsible and dangerous”. UNAIDS, the UN Population Fund, and WHO released an updated position statement on HIV prevention and condoms, which said that “the male latex condom is the single, most efficient, available technology to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV”. Amidst the fury, even the Vatican tried to alter the pontiff’s wording. On the Holy See’s website, the Vatican’s head of media, Father Federico Lombari, quoted the Pope as having said that there was a “risk that condoms…might increase the problem”.

Whether the Pope’s error was due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology is unclear. But the comment still stands and the Vatican’s attempts to tweak the Pope’s words, further tampering with the truth, is not the way forward. When any influential person, be it a religious or political leader, makes a false scientific statement that could be devastating to the health of millions of people, they should retract or correct the public record. Anything less from Pope Benedict would be an immense disservice to the public and health advocates, including many thousands of Catholics, who work tirelessly to try and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS worldwide.

thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60627-9/fulltext?_eventId=login

As I mentioned earlier, the editorial offers no evidence. Yes, The Lancet is a very highly respected medical journal, but the editorial is little more than self-righteous harrumphing. The experience of Uganda, which had a very successful program to limit multiple sexual partners, was that the condom promotion of the international ABC (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condomize) approach eroded its early success.
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032802510_pf.html

The blanket use of the “one-size fits all” ABC approach, which has been imposed on third world nations by the first world, has not worked well. We should be developing more nuanced programs which:

1. Are behavioral, not primarily technological or biomedical in nature;

2. Are appropriate to the type of HIV epidemic (i.e. generalized or concentrated);

3. Learn from and build upon indigenous knowledge and local culture;

4. Recognize the role of community values, including spiritual and religious beliefs, in influencing behavior;

5. Are cost-effective, feasible and sustainable;

6. In general seek to avoid risk, rather than mainly to reduce the risk of inherently risky behaviors;

7. Are innovative and seek creative solutions that extend beyond the standard or heretofore most common approaches in prevention;

8. Account for the role of gender in sexual risk and behaviors.

Those are the objectives of the AIDS Prevention Research Project of Harvard University. I think they are on the right track.
harvardaidsprp.org/research/index.html

 

[drno]

There’s one logical question that I’d like to ask all those condom-loving liberals

You accuse Pope for banning the use of condoms, and you believe that if Pope said “go ahead and use condoms”, then HIV epidemic in Africa would end. For this statement to be true, we need to assume that most people in Africa obey whatever the Pope says.

But the Pope also says “Sex is OK only between married couples”. So, if your previous assumption was true (people in Africa blindly obey Pope, and that is why AIDS is spreading), then your assumption would imply that people also obey Pope on more important matter - that is, they do not have sex outside of their marriage.

But, the fact is, people ARE having sex with multiple partners, so they are not obeying what the Pope says about monogamy. So we can conclude that the same people who are having sex with multiple partners don’t care what the Pope says about condoms, and even if the Pope said condoms are OK, these people wouldn’t change their behavior and start using condoms.

Did I get something wrong here?

(sorry for my bad English)

 

[Mark77]

I am puzzled by some of these responses. As I said the “Lancet” is a respected serious journal. They are not sensationalist and their remarks deserve a considered and well argued response, not just “they are wrong”.
I read the Pope’s remarks and do not agree with them. Of course not having sex with an infected person is the best protection, as is not having sex the best form of birth control. No-one argues with that, however that is NOT the debate. It is simply unrealistic to expect the majority of people to comply with such a requirement, especially the poor and ignorant. In the real world people do have sex, do have multiple partners, do get drunk and beat up their wives or force themselves upon them. The last three regrettable and sinful. Just confessing on Sunday does not though remove the long term effects. Only the RC church hold the view that condoms do not protect, and I have yet to see any genuine scientific research which substantiates that viewpoint. A little from doubtful sources but the huge body of scientific opinion is that they are a useful tool in the fight against AIDS.
I continue to believe you are being naive and unrealistic. I “get it” very well, but it is obvious that some of the respondees only see things from one very biased viewpoint which they have been spoonfed and swallowed whole. I encourage them to step back, reflect on everyone’s words, not just the Pope’s, and come to a really thoughful considered view. This is much too important to be treated as simply theoretical dogma. Real people are dying when they could be saved BY YOU!!!

Who says “Lancet” is a serious respected medical journal? Respected by who, people who agree with them?

An independent AIDS study at Harvard (not a hot-bed of “idiot Pope lovers” there!) has concluded that condom usage in Africa has resulted in increased AIDS infections, not a reduction. This study was based on independent government data.

The only country with a reduction in AIDS cases was Uganda, where the Church has successfully promoted abstinence.

You “brights” and “enlightened progressives” always use “scientific data” as your basis for progressive thinking in order to overcome our “repressive, middle-ages Church teachings.”

Unfortunately, when unbiased secular scientific data proves you wrong, then you have to resort to name calling to push your invalid arguments. It is you who is “naive and unrealistic”.

Your agenda of self-serving sexual promiscuity, covered with “progressive lies” about the use of condoms, birth control and abortion, has directly caused the horrible deaths of billions of innocent women and children throughout the world.

I am praying for you and all of the innocent babies and women murdered every day by the lies of the men who push their agenda of selfish sexual promiscuity, no matter who dies because of their callous narcicisim.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark

 

[graceandglory]

Who says “Lancet” is a serious respected medical journal? Respected by who, people who agree with them?

Oh mark77, the Lancet is a medical research journal. When it is doing research it is respected, an editorial is just an opinion.

 

[david_house]

The logic here is kind of skewed & would be funny if not about such a tragic issue.
Do you really expect people who “get drunk,beat up their wives or force themselves upon them” to take the time before the violent act to properly use a condom? Right.

No, but their wives might. They might not always succeed but if they did it would be one less chance of an infection. No-one believes that condoms are the ONLY answer but to deny that they have a role is flying in the face of accepted wisdom. By all means try to encourage faithfulness and abstinence to your believers. What about all the unbelievers? Do you seek to deny them access to condoms too? I live in the Philippines and see the results of such a policy at first hand. It is an unmitigated, but totally avoidable, disaster.
High principals are fine for theories. The real world is somewhat different.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

No, but their wives might. They might not always succeed but if they did it would be one less chance of an infection. No-one believes that condoms are the ONLY answer but to deny that they have a role is flying in the face of accepted wisdom. By all means try to encourage faithfulness and abstinence to your believers. What about all the unbelievers? Do you seek to deny them access to condoms too? I live in the Philippines and see the results of such a policy at first hand. It is an unmitigated, but totally avoidable, disaster.
High principals are fine for theories. The real world is somewhat different.

I’m sorry, but this is even more absurd, an abused wife trying to coach her drunken, abusive husband into using a condom as he is forcing himself on her…Right
As you state:this is fine in theory.
Sure, condoms may work part of the time but in the long run, and especially in these populations, you are just looking at inevitable failure rates & increased infection due to sexual activity .

 

[david_house]

What a naive response! Of course in the particular circumstances being considered the wife is not likely to succeed, that is conceded. There will be however many occasions when the availability of condoms will protect her and all the others. To suggest otherwise is turning a blind eye to a huge weight of evidence and trying to find justification for an already determined moral stance.
To pretend that preaching abstinence is a realistic long term solution is just plain stupid. Societies just don’t work like that. Here in the Philippines most go to RC church and are devout. They are also immoral and have many relationships outside of marriage, especially as divorce is not allowed. I have never lived anywhere where sexual morality is as low as it is here. The Government wishes to promote the free distribution of condoms, but the powerful church stops them, even to those who do not share the faith.
We are dealing with humans, not machines. Some will respond to a message of fear, mixed with hope, but not enough to prevent and disaster. Please open your eyes.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

What a naive response! Of course in the particular circumstances being considered the wife is not likely to succeed, that is conceded. There will be however many occasions when the availability of condoms will protect her and all the others. To suggest otherwise is turning a blind eye to a huge weight of evidence and trying to find justification for an already determined moral stance.
To pretend that preaching abstinence is a realistic long term solution is just plain stupid. Societies just don’t work like that. Here in the Philippines most go to RC church and are devout. They are also immoral and have many relationships outside of marriage, especially as divorce is not allowed. I have never lived anywhere where sexual morality is as low as it is here. The Government wishes to promote the free distribution of condoms, but the powerful church stops them, even to those who do not share the faith.
We are dealing with humans, not machines. Some will respond to a message of fear, mixed with hope, but not enough to prevent and disaster. Please open your eyes.

You seem to have a pretty low opinion of Filipinos.Not my opinion or experience with folks from the Philippines. Your comments also suggest issues with the Church.

 

[vz71]

I am puzzled by some of these responses. As I said the “Lancet” is a respected serious journal. They are not sensationalist and their remarks deserve a considered and well argued response, not just “they are wrong”.
I read the Pope’s remarks and do not agree with them. Of course not having sex with an infected person is the best protection, as is not having sex the best form of birth control. No-one argues with that, however that is NOT the debate.

Oh I beg to differ…

UNAIDS, the UN Population Fund, and WHO released an updated position statement on HIV prevention and condoms, which said that “the male latex condom is the single, most efficient, available technology to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV”.

Is a far cry from the “Of course not having sex with an infected person is the best protection” that you seem to believe they support.

The Pope is correct. It appears the Lancet has an agenda secondary to preventing the disease. Else they would be in support of action that is 100% effective.

 

[david_house]

Actually I have a good opinion of many Filipinos. I am married to one. Inspite of their poverty, their poor governance and the corrosive effect of the church they remain some of the happiest people I have met. I don’t blame them for the culture that exists here, which is of endemic corruption at all levels and a complete lack of honesty. It is due to their history, the Spanish influence followed by that of the USA, and especially the power wielded by the RC church. With good leadership, and a separation of State and Church, they could easily become again the leaders in South East Asia. Right now they are well behind almost everyone, but especially Malaysia. Whenever I raise these issues with Filipinos I get a wonderfully positive response for no-one here ever questions the status quo in any of the media. I often see the scales falling from the eyes as people see an alternative viewpoint for the first time. They can see the truth, as they live with the realities. I feel you only live with the theories.
Yes, I have a problem with the RC church. I have no problem in accepting that individuals have the freedom to believe and do whatever they wish, provided it does not impact upon another. Where I take issue is when those beliefs form part of a political agenda, with attempts made to influence policies which are the rightful responsibility of elected governments. Governments elected to represent all of the people and to think for themselves. I don’t like interest group politics of any type. I detest “lobbies” and want them removed from public life. That includes all of those whose causes I also support.
If the church wishes to preach a “pro-life”, no condom, anti-abortion agenda to it’s own membership then so be it. As soon as it takes that out to a wider audience I object, for it has no right to be heard. It is a church, not a political group.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Actually I have a good opinion of many Filipinos. I am married to one. Inspite of their poverty, their poor governance and the corrosive effect of the church they remain some of the happiest people I have met. I don’t blame them for the culture that exists here, which is of endemic corruption at all levels and a complete lack of honesty. It is due to their history, the Spanish influence followed by that of the USA, and especially the power wielded by the RC church. With good leadership, and a separation of State and Church, they could easily become again the leaders in South East Asia. Right now they are well behind almost everyone, but especially Malaysia. Whenever I raise these issues with Filipinos I get a wonderfully positive response for no-one here ever questions the status quo in any of the media. I often see the scales falling from the eyes as people see an alternative viewpoint for the first time. They can see the truth, as they live with the realities. I feel you only live with the theories.
Yes, I have a problem with the RC church. I have no problem in accepting that individuals have the freedom to believe and do whatever they wish, provided it does not impact upon another. Where I take issue is when those beliefs form part of a political agenda, with attempts made to influence policies which are the rightful responsibility of elected governments. Governments elected to represent all of the people and to think for themselves. I don’t like interest group politics of any type. I detest “lobbies” and want them removed from public life. That includes all of those whose causes I also support.
If the church wishes to preach a “pro-life”, no condom, anti-abortion agenda to it’s own membership then so be it. As soon as it takes that out to a wider audience I object, for it has no right to be heard. It is a church, not a political group.

I think Filipinos are remarkably tolerant to suffer foreigners in their midst who have such a patronizing view of their Church, morals, & culture.
Try that in a Muslim country…

 

[vz71]

If the church wishes to preach a “pro-life”, no condom, anti-abortion agenda to it’s own membership then so be it. As soon as it takes that out to a wider audience I object, for it has no right to be heard.

Since when?

Why should any individuals suffer a censorship of their speech when their speech includes morality?

 

[david_house]

When you speak of “their” church you maybe don’t realise just how much effort some of the other churches are putting in here.The Mormons are making huge strides as are many others. I have no figures but the % membership of the RC church must be falling fast. I also meet many, many very disenchanted young people who are internet aware and as a consequence ready to challenge the established order imposed upon them by the authority figures that controlling parents and the RC church represent. Many of these youngsters proclaim a total rejection of any religious belief.
Of course I value the freedom to express my views but that comes from our democracy, not from the church. I would never defend the way that Islam stiffles debate, it is outragious. I would also not use it to try to support an argument for it is so clearly not right that we can agree that and move on.
So you feel I am patronising. That’s your right. I feel the RC church is wholly wrong on many issues and a good idea gone bad. It seems to me that the basic message of loving one another has got drowned in a sea of conventions, doctrine and routines which have assumed such an importance that they have replaced a search for the truth. That search should go on throughout time and as knowledge increases so the way the message is applied needs to be revised. To rely upon outdated ritual might be comforting, but it is also highly dangerous.