Is it more ethical to lie or tell the truth?
Now this question is really posed to those who believe that
- humans , male and female, straight and glbtq, etc have inalienable human rights
- informed consent is important
- education/ decreasing ignorance or misinformation enables people to make better choices
- morality should not be legislated or imposed, but can be promoted
For those who believe teenagers should receive abstinence-only education, or that people with HIV deserve it, I’m not talking to you here, please come back another day.
Now, the question: Are there instances where it is more ethical to lie to the public than to tell the public the truth?
(I’m not referring to personal relationships eg. when you tell a dying relative there is hope because you don’t want him to go into despair, or you tell your best friend she’s beautiful to help her with her self-esteem)
This was the situation I was specifically pondering over:
There is a huge difference in societal attitudes towards HIV vs cervical cancer. HIV is many more times stigmatized compared to cervical cancer, even though both are STIs and primarily transmitted through sexual activity.
My hypothesis: Knowledge that cervical cancer is caused by the sexually transmitted virus HPV is much much lower than the knowledge that HIV is an STI (this has been shown true by research). This ignorance results in a much much lower stigmatization level for cervical cancer.
I believe that its because cervical cancer has always been “marketed” as a cancer, and people are asked to do PAP smears to detect and stop it early. Seldom is it “marketed” as an STI. In fact, looking through my old science text books, STI brochures and posters at the DSC clinic in Singapore, cervical cancer does not appear in big words.
The HPV virus as an STI is “marketed” by its less dangerous symptom : genital warts. And genital warts IS stigmatized.
HIV is definitely “marketed” as an STI.
As a result of this ignorance, many more people are willing to discuss cervical cancers openly, and PAP smears can be advertised and encouraged openly.
It does not suffer from the similar backlash that HIV early detection suffers from. My dad has openly asked my mother and I to get the Cervical Cancer vaccine, but he will never think of asking either of us to do an HIV test………
This is where my dilemma comes in, and I’ll like to hear from other human rights supporters.
What is the ethical thing to do?
In this case, ignorance actually protects.
Should we then keep up this public ignorance?
Or should we educate people appropriately, risk stigmatizing cervical cancer, and driving people to hide their symptoms rather than seek help?
Ad used to promote condom use to prevent HIV infection. The caption reads : Cause AIDs ain’t sexy . http://www.afa.org.sg/awarenesscampaign/CosAIDSIsntSexy.asp
- Ad promoting papsmear to detect and treat cervical cancer early. Caption: power over cervical cancer. http://www.pocc.sg/
Naturally, the next question would be this:
what if we “rebrand” HIV, along the lines of cervical cancer?
Let’s acknowlege that HIV image took off on a bad start and lets try to start with a clean new slate.
Let’s stop the name HV and AIDs, lets call it…… cancer of the immune system, or white blood cell cancer.
Let’s not say HIV test; let’s call it CD4 viability test or NAT(nucleic acid test) or something like that.
Let’s not say retriviral treatment, lets call it chemotherapy …..
Let’s start this from scratch , and do the marketing we’ve done with cervical cancer.
After all, the 2 aren’t so different.
Both spread through sex
Both lethal if not detected and treated early
Both with significant life-prolonging rates with optimal treatment when detected in the earliest stages
What do you think?
Ethical?
Feasible?
(i’m putting up 2 advertisements used in singapore for comparison and hope i don’t get sued for copyright. Look at the cervical cancer one : what if we used exactly the same thing, but changing all the cervical cancer labels for the new HIV labels? )
Mathia, I’m finding it hard to analogise to other circumstances, but in this case, do you really think it’s lying? Isn’t it more a question of emphasis in – as you put it – marketing? If the information available on cervical cancer doesn’t state that sexual activity increases the risk of it, then yes, I would call that lying. But doesn’t it do so? People are told to go for PAP smears once they become sexually active aren’t they? (Maybe I am misremembering here.)
Maybe what this hints at is the limitations of the way STIs are currently, as you put it, ‘marketed’. Perhaps at the moment the very process of encouraging awareness about STI prevention is too tied up in the stigmas associated with sexuality generally: huge pictures of diseased genitals etc. (which to the best of my recollection was the only sex education I ever had in school, by the way – seriously, there were pamphlets with pictures of penises afflicted by STIs and that was it). A lot of it seems tied up in the general notion of the ‘dirtiness’ of sex. Perhaps rather than indicating that the cervical cancer approach is ‘lying’, what this shows is that the current STI prevention campaigns could take a leaf from its book?
Jolene (now at http://illyrica.wordpress.com)
I’m pragmatic on this one. People can only take in one or two messages at a time. Focus on the most important message. In conclusion – tell the useful parts of the truth.
Aren’t I the little fascist?
So what if we “rebrand” HIV, along the lines of cervical cancer?
Let’s acknowlege that HIV image took off on a bad start and lets try to start with a clean new slate.
Let’s stop the name HV and AIDs, lets call it…… cancer of the immune system, or white blood cell cancer.
Let’s not say HIV test; let’s call it CD4 viability test or NAT(nucleic acid test) or something like that.
Let’s not say retriviral treatment, lets call it chemotherapy …..
Let’s start this from scratch , and do the marketing we’ve done with cervical cancer.
After all, the 2 aren’t so different.
Both spread through sex
Both lethal if not detected and treated early
Both with significant life-prolonging rates with optimal treatment when detected in the earliest stages
What do you think?
Ethical?
Feasible?
(i’m putting up 2 advertisements used in singapore for comparison and hope i don’t get sued for copyright. Look at the cervical cancer one : what if we used exactly the same thing, but changing all the cervical cancer labels for the new HIV labels? )
Just looking at the 2 ads:
The AIDS one subconsciously sends the messages:
HIV=sluts, hookers, mistresses, etc
The cervical cancer one subconsciously sends the message:
cervical cancer = ALL women at risk; your mother, your wife, your daughter
@illyrica
One thing you mentioned struck me.
With papsmears, women are told that once they have become sexually active, they should go do one.
With HIV , people are told to be faithful, and if you’ve ever engaged in high risk sex (ie sex other than a single lifetime monogamous partner) you need to get tested..
That’s a HUGE difference is messaging.
With the first, all married women do not feel stigmatised going for a pap, because its fine fo them to be sexually active. With the second, going for a HIV test would make a woman/man seem like he/she was publically admitting to either being unfaithful or being cuckolded……..
(i suspect many believe that sex per se makes it easier for a woman to develop cancer, rather than thinking it was sexually transmitted. Or even perhaps, that it’s wrong to stick anything up your vagina if you’ve never had sex, even a medical instrument. I remember going to a doctor once for irregular periods, and she wanted to feel for lumps or something. She asked if i ever had sex, because if i never had, she would feel me up from the rectum instead. When i was a teen, my mom said that virgins shouldn’t use a tampon, and some teachers/nurses even echoed that view…..)
“Are there instances where it is more ethical to lie to the public than to tell the public the truth?”
If you refer specifically to the AIDS and cervical cancer issue, by what measure do you judge? How do you know that there are deliberate attempts to lie?
————————————————————————
With regards to the disparity in public knowledge on HIV versus cervical cancer (as an STI), this is my hypothesis (has similarities to illyrica and karen):
For the purpose of preventing the spread of STD (all forms), health officials need to designate one or a few STDs as “The One(s)” in order to get the message to the masses. Why?
Because if you barrage information to the public on every STDs available on a nation-wide blitz, it loses effectiveness.
In this case, the “deadliest” STD was chosen – HIV.
To be clear, there are many types of HPV. For example, the common warts, caused by HPV but not transmitted through sexual contact, can be common amongst children. Therefore, public messages that are HPV related could be too wordy/complicated to be effective.
Perhaps, health officials treat this as a on-demand kind of information, i.e. a patient sees the doctor for a particular condition, and the doctor explains to the patient.
——————————————————————–
This is what I found through a simple online literature search:
“Cervical cancer begins with abnormal changes in the cervical tissue. The risk of developing these abnormal changes has been associated with certain factors, including previous infection with human papillomavirus (HPV), early sexual contact, multiple sexual partners, cigarette smoking, and taking oral contraceptives (birth control pills).”
-> Therefore, you can’t “brand” cervical cancer as STI. And you also can’t brand all HPV types as STI. For a public message where you deliver the message short and sweet, aren’t you spreading ignorance (and probably panic) if you “blanket-brand” cervical cancer and HPV as STI?
“How do you know that there are deliberate attempts to lie? “
I never did say they were deliberate attempts to lie, please don’t slander me
The difference for the messaging (and this is world wide, not just a singaporean experience; I think we have followed international practices quite closely…… ) is this.
Cervical cancer was discovered decades before the link to the virus as the necessary causative agent was made. For decades, papsmear was used and recommended. Becuase of that, the world just continued with the same marketing even after the link was made.
On the other hand with HIV, the link between AIDS and HIV was made very early on in the illness’s discovery, and even more unforturnately, in the early years, it was primarily found in the gay community and thought to be a gay disease. Only a few years later did it spread to the heterosexual community. Thus it gained its stigma very early on, even within the marketing, and the world just continued with this. Which is why i wonder if it could be “rebranded”……. just a thought tho’…..is it ethical to? workable? effective?
There was really no intention by anyone to select HIV as “the one”.
The reason why it is so is very simple. ALL other STIs are readily treatable or curable. HIV had been the only one that had no cure and limited treatment; hence prevention was the only thing we could do, and so all around the world, there was the drive to prevent HIV through marketing. However in recent years, HIV treatments have developed to the stage where it was possible to be managed as a chronic disease and extent life for more than 3 decades. The main draw back , of course, is the cost of the these drugs. (would anyone be able to tell me the difference between the potential cost burden of HIV?AIDS vs cardiovascular-releated illness like diabetes, kidney failure, stroke etc on a national scale???? i suspect the latter actuallyhas a higher cost burden) Which is why we still upkeep the prevention marketing.
And of course, I’ll agree and champion for prevention marketing — why get it when life is so much better if you never got it in the first place?
What i’m exploring are ways to break down people’s resistance to its message.
It’s true that with HPV, it can’t be marketted as an STI because HPVs come in many types and most are not STIs or dangerous.
However, genital warts are STIs and marketed as such.
“Cervical cancer begins with abnormal changes in the cervical tissue. The risk of developing these abnormal changes has been associated with certain factors, including previous infection with human papillomavirus (HPV), early sexual contact, multiple sexual partners, cigarette smoking, and taking oral contraceptives (birth control pills).”
Cervical cancer is an STI. HPV is a necessary causative agent. This paragraph does not deny that but i can see how it is misleading for a layman.
All cervical cancer is caused by the STI-type HPV. But not all people who have the STI-type HPV develope cervical cancer. In fact amongst young women, approx 75% have their HPV disappear through the body’s own effort in 2 years.
What the paragraph means is that if you previously had HPV, the chance of cervical cancer increases, because you need to have HPV to develope cervical cncer.
The earlier your sexual contact, the earlier your chance of being HPV infected, and since cancer takes years to develope, you simply have more time and hence higher risk of getting cervical cancer. Same with multiple partners —- you simply increase your risk of exposure. The same thing happens with Birth Control Pills. People on the Pill tend to reduce their condom use, because they are already on contraceptive, thus increasing their exposure to not just HPV, but all forms of STIs. That said, condoms are not 100% effective against HPV. While used consitently and correctly, the good condom brands are nearly 99% effective for HIV, reports of effectiveness against HPV are much lower (80%???? i can’t recall. Anyone got the reference? )
Cigeratte smoking simply increases the risk of person with HPV having her cervical cells turning cancerous. That’s what cigeratte smoke does — with your lung cells, gut cells, and also HPV-infected cervical cells.
Following from my previous comments.
The early link made between HIV and homosexuality was very unfortunate, and even more unfortunate that it was made by the scientific community as well, in particular the early discoverers of the virus themselves.
It highlights the responsibility we as scientists have, in making claims. It was a case of drawing a conclusion far too early in the epidemic, as well as innate prejudice. I’ll give you an analogy (lucky it didn’t happen!) : It’s like making a scientific claim that Swine Flu as linked to being Mexican within the first weeks of the outbreak.
I peviously raised this issue , and attached the PDF of the scientific paper, here in this post:
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/hiv_homosexuality_science/
Wth?! I thought PAP smears was for detecting cancer due to taking contraceptive pills! Does taking contraceptive pills increase the danger of having cancer or any other ailment?
It’s definitely unethical to lie to people. There might be unintended consequences. Much better to just be honest, and expect people to do the right thing for themselves.
And is it true that we can’t buy contraceptive pills until we have done our PAP smears?
Hey Singaporeatheist, I’m really glad you raised these questions cos i wasn’t even aware of what kind of misconceptions people had.
Papsmear detects cervical cancer, which is caused by the virus HPV, but not everyone with HPV gets cervical cancer. Scientists still don’t know why in some people it progresses to cancer and in others, it doesn’t. They do know that if you smoke, it is more likely to turn cancerous. There are reports that OC is ASSOCIATED with higher cervical cancer risk, therefore contributing to the misconception that OC CAUSED cervical cancer. OC users tend to use condoms less, and that itself can explain the increase in cervical cancer rates amongst OC users.
The effect of OC on cancer is still being studied; it seems to up the risk for some cancers and lower the risk for others.
More complete info here
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives
As for buying OC, nope it’s absolutely not true (in singapore) tht you need to have a PAPsmear to buy. There’s no reason to actually.
I’ve an issue with the way OC is sold in singapore tho’. I think the patients buying them are not fully informed and educated about the risk of not using condoms, because OC prevents pregnancy only, and not STIs. Condoms prevent both.
But that’s a story for another day = )
Our local private clinics insist that we have papsmear tests before they would sell us any OC. Is that legal?
I don’t know if that is illegal
But its defintely not a legal requirement to do that. Clinic policy lah……
There seems to be some kind of urban myth going around that a papsmear every three years is mandatory.
Well, looks like one gets to learn something new every day. Thanks a bunch for all the information!
While it is not mandatory to do a papsmear every 3 yrs (ie. you won’t be fined), but that is certainly the recommended screening interval.
The reason is that from the earliest detectable cervical cell abnormality to the time it actually becomes cancerous, is a bit more than 3 years, so internationally, the medical community recommend screening at a 3 year interval.
You’re most welcomed!!! = )
Spread the word!!! = )
[...] – The Gigamole Diaries: What??? No regulation for stem cell products also? !!! – Mathia Lee: Is it more ethical to lie or tell the truth? – Singapore Life and Times: Cheap [...]
Mathia, thanks for adding the ads to the page. I think this really chimes with what I said initially. The whole approach to “STI marketing” may be counterproductive. From the fixation on genitalia of my youth, to the focus on “sexiness” and “sleaziness” today, it’s tied up with promoting the notion of sexuality being dirty and only taking certain exaggerated forms… which is why mudslinging about STIs has often become a stand-in for calling people “sluts”. It’s dangerous. Sexuality doesn’t only come in the forms the media saturates us with (as if a woman in a tight-fitting low-cut dress is synonymous with sexual activity?!), and taking care of your health should not be associated with shame.
Stop waisting time with the diseases of the immoral and the depraved. People who practice a disgusting lifestyle deserve to be diseased. It is only logical. If you eat bad meat, you will get food poisoning. If you roll in shit, you get skin disease. If you sleep around like a whore, you get HIV. It is that simple.
papsmear? That’s what the government does to the opposition. Stop hijacking terms!
Stop all this howling and whining!
OMG solobear, ROFL!
Mathia,
This is the REAL solo bear. The one posted on 27 Oct 2009 4:12pm is an impostor.
Goes to show how low some people are willing to stoop.
I only knew of the above post because it was linked to my site. Otherwise I won’t even know it exists.
“I never did say they were deliberate attempts to lie, please don’t slander me.”
My interpretation of your post was not as you have intended, and I was asking “what” and “how”, not slandering.
—————————————————
“There was really no intention by anyone to select HIV as “the one”.”
Although there was no intention, some how it does appear that HIV became “the one”. If you ask people to start naming STDs, HIV probably will top the list. And if you don’t mention about genital warts, most people probably won’t know what is HPV.
—————————————————
“What is the ethical thing to do? In this case, ignorance actually protects. Should we then keep up this public ignorance? Or should we educate people appropriately, risk stigmatizing cervical cancer, and driving people to hide their symptoms rather than seek help?”
I think ignorance in this case work two ways:
Protect – No risk to stigmatizing cervical cancer.
Harm – How many people actually know that condoms, if used properly, only has ~70% chance of preventing HPV or even STIs like Herpes? Therefore, ignorance means more High-Risk HPV infections and eventually higher incidence of cervical cancer detection.
I think a mixture of education and ignorance might do the trick. Consider some of the possible ways High-Risk HPV gets transmitted:
Sexually Transmitted Infections 1999 Oct;75(5):317-9:
Detection of human papillomavirus DNA on the fingers of patients with genital warts.
Rev Med Virol 1999 Jan-Mar;9(1):15-21:
High risk genital papillomavirus infections are spread vertically.
-> “Vertically” means mother to child. The study was carried out on children age 3-11 (implying non-sexually active).
AND
“Cervix cancer is now considered to be a sexually transmittable disease. Human papillomaviruses and possibly herpes simplex virus type 2 have been implicated in causing the cancer. These viruses are transmitted during sexual intercourse.”
From SGH’s website: http://www.sgh.com.sg/ForPatientsnVisitors/PatientEducation/HealthGlossary/CervicalCancer.htm
Therefore, if people feel stigmatized, they can simply hide behind “alternate modes of transmission”. I also think that if a community has high incidence of premarital sex and multiple (or simply having a history of more than one sexual relationships) sexual partners, people won’t feel stigmatized because HPV incidence would be high and one “excuse” to use would be “I got it from my ex”.
—————————————————
By the way, does CSE give sufficient information about these STIs that spread far more easily than HIV?
Abstinence-only programs doesn’t offer much information because it is assumed that if one follow abstinence-only programs to the letter, one would have no issue with any STIs.
Though HPV will increase the risks of cervical cancer, it is not the only cause of cervical cancer. Therefore, by equating cervical cancer with sexually transmitted disease, I think it is unfair. Likewise for HIV, some people caught it due to blood transfusion. The technology to screen for that appeared around the late 80s. Also, some contacted HIV or HPV from an unawaring spouse and some babies got it from their mother. Sexual intercourse is not the only route for both the diseases. I believe the author dislikes social stigmas; however as you can see, social stigmas are hard to eradicate.
Hi Rialce
I think you brought up a great point, thanks!
HPV is the CAUSE of cervical cancer in the overwhelming majority of cases. I think what you mean is that sexual transmission is not th only means of HPV transmission, even though that’s the large majority as well, but still, yes, it will be unfair.
Likewise, HIV is no different. In Singapore it is sexually transmitted in the ovewhelming means of transmission (in some countries, drug abuse is). However it is not the only means, and babies have got it from moms, faithful wives from husbands, people from transfusions done overseas…… I had a friend who was a newly graduated medical doctor here, and one day he pricked himself after drawing blood from a HIV patient. He was put on anti-viral drugs immediately and luckily, he was not infected. Very close shave tho’.
And so its really important that we don’t start any social stigmas, because, as you’ve pointed out, once in place, its hard to eradicate
There are both positive and negative sides to social stigmas. They come as a package.
For example, we know piracy of digital copyright content is stealing. But there is very little if any social stigma to it, that is why such form of piracy is so widespread.
Why view social stigmas as something that is wholly negative? One should have a balance view.
With regards to HIV, if a person says that he/she is infected from non-sexual sources, he/she will either get stigmatized on other issues (e.g. as a drug abuser) or simply receive little, if any, stigmatization.
Revealing how one gets infected will reduce/eliminate the stigma, if the person gets infected through no fault of his/her own. Those who have stuff to hide are the ones who will get stigmatized.
“Why view social stigmas as something that is wholly negative?”
The point is that people are dying unecessarily early because they feel too stigmatised to go for early detection/seek treatment
“The point is that people are dying unnecessarily early because they feel too stigmatised to go for early detection/seek treatment.”
And how many more people would be infected without social stigma?
I have already said “Revealing how one gets infected will reduce/eliminate the stigma, if the person gets infected through no fault of his/her own. Those who have stuff to hide are the ones who will get stigmatized.”
Compare Lawrence
versus
Ti-Ko Uncle who goes to batam frequently for unprotected sex / do not know how to use condom properly.
Will Ti-Ko Uncle reveal his story? If Ti-Ko Uncle infects his wife, innocent-auntie, and she reveals her story, who will condemn her? You can put this question to anybody, and then ask yourself, where is the social stigma?
In the case of HIV, social stigma can be viewed as a unofficial crude/blunt instrument. It helps curb certain behaviors for majority of the society. But it is still blunt.
In the long run, education is still the way forward. However, before education gets there, social stigma (i.e. fear) travels much faster.
You said so yourself, sexual transmission of HIV is in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Perhaps you should get out of your ivory tower (i.e. being in the top 10% of the population in terms of intelligence scale, and crunching statistics and information much faster than the 90%) and understand how the masses actually operate.
You’re implying that social stigma actually encourages healthy behavior.
That’s a baseless assumption made on your part based on your own prejudice.
The whole idea about comparing cervical cancer with HIV is to compare 2 very similar illnesses, the only difference being the stigma level due to their legacy of public branding.
And global research and surveys show that people are alot more willing to engage in healthy behavior when stigma is significantly less.
Statistics show that a lot more people are willing to screen for, seek treatment and emotional support for, cervical cancer as opposed to HIV.
Social stigma uses fear and pressure. It does nothing to encourage healthy behavior, education is suppose to do that. And, depending on the type of social stigma, the fear and pressure can be all bad.
From your ivory tower, you say that I made a baseless assumption because of my own prejudice. But what I’ve pointed out are simply observations. Unlike you, I acknowledge what social stigma can do and cannot do. I do not support nor reject social stigma, while you clearly state your own prejudice.
Cervical cancer and HIV are not that similar as you have put it. Furthermore, local statistics show incidence of cervical cancer is decreasing while incidence of reported HIV is increasing.
Ah, now you cite global research and surveys on social stigma. Let me ask you, who creates social stigma? The government? The civil service? The people around you? The millions in the country? The ones who participated in the global research and surveys?
——————————————————————
“Statistics show that a lot more people are willing to screen for, seek treatment and emotional support for, cervical cancer as opposed to HIV.”
You are not comparing the statistics properly.
Let’s compare apples to apples.
Consider a faithful wife who got infected with HPV (and subsequently develop cervical cancer) from a promiscuous husband, and a faithful wife who got infected with HIV from a promiscuous husband. Would not both women receive equivalent treatment and support from caring relatives and friends?
Now let’s compare cervical cancer versus HIV in more detail.
Let me use the HIV stats from MOH to illustrate. From 1985 to 2008, there were 3500+ cumulative reported HIV male cases, and 400+ cumulative reported HIV female cases. In 2008 alone, there were 426 reported male cases while there were only 30 reported female cases.
Now, based on these reported statistics, we extrapolate and assume that, locally, males are significantly more promiscuous than females.
By extrapolation, we make a general statement and say transmission of HIV/HPV/STDs locally is mostly the fault of males, and that females (i.e. faithful wives and girlfriends) are on the receiving end.
Given that most cases of HIV are males and that most got it from their misbehavior, would you support them?
Contrast…
Given that all cases of cervical cancer are females and that most got the HPV from their husbands, would you support them?
“local statistics show incidence of cervical cancer is decreasing while incidence of reported HIV is increasing.”
Is it any coincidence that the stigma level of cervical cancer is low and HIV is high? I think the stigma level has impacted the incidence trends
“Now, based on these reported statistics, we extrapolate and assume that, locally, males are significantly more promiscuous than females.
By extrapolation, we make a general statement and say transmission of HIV/HPV/STDs locally is mostly the fault of males, and that females (i.e. faithful wives and girlfriends) are on the receiving end.”
I think to extrapolate so much from simple statistics, (especially when it is IMPOSSIBLE for males to get cervical cancer so what are your bringing gender demographics in for????) just shows how much you’ve based extrapolation on prejudice
———————————————–
TO other readers:
IMO, CM ’s arguments from the beginning have been just going round and round the same point. I’m, frankly, quite exhausted addressing the same point over and over again.
So, i’ll really appreciate if you either answer him on my behalf, or forgive my lack of response to his subsequent assertions (sorry i can’t call them arguments)
And please forgive my rudeness, I’m very exhausted. The aim of my blog after all, was never to win arguements, nor to convince the whole world.
I merely wanted a place to pen down thoughts, to seek views from others (but not necessarily needing to change them), and to share what I believe with others, especially if I think it will help.
I’ve been responding to CM so far because I truly believe he presented lots of misinformation based on his own prejudice, which I felt would be misleading for others if I did not correct them.
But I’m exhausted. So please be warned, that if i do not respond further, it does not mean I agree, nor does it mean I feel info is correct.
I advise you to see further info to confirm. If there is a very pressing point that anyone feels you want my opinion from, please leave a comment, and I shall respond, to the best of my knowledge.
Thanks.
Oh well, at least I’ve been honest about my own extrapolation and prejudice, if any.
While you judge that I have presented information based on my own prejudice, I won’t continue to point out statements that you have made based on your own prejudice.
That way there won’t be anymore assertions/arguments either ways.
mathia lee wrote
And please forgive my rudeness, I’m very exhausted. The aim of my blog after all, was never to win arguements, nor to convince the whole world
You can never convince the whole world, mathia. Solobear can’t even convince himself.
Give it up!
Hey Mathia, I think you do a great job engaging arguments and it’s very educational reading your blog. But you shouldn’t feel obliged to deal with everything that gets posted here – especially when you feel it’s going round in circles.
Have you ever seen this? http://www.historiann.com/lessons-for-girls/
There’s some stuff there about “opting out” which I think it’s very important to take on board when trying to do raising awareness on blogs as it’s easy to burn out when you have to deal with so much “educating” work. It’s a marathon not a sprint after all – and to be honest, I think there’s a good chance we’ll be running it most of our lives!
Cheers
Jolene
“Mathia: I’ve been responding to CM so far because I truly believe he presented lots of misinformation based on his own prejudice, which I felt would be misleading for others if I did not correct them.”
Chanced upon this article…
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article5208865.ece
Before I put forth what you call assertions, understand that this article is probably the best example of how a proper CSE will work.
But let’s get to the stigma issue…
Another reason why the teenage pregnancy rate is so low may be that in the Netherlands there is still a stigma attached to having a child before the age of 20. In Britain, a baby who can offer unconditional love, a free home away from parents and a cheque every month is not considered a disaster for a teenage girl. The Dutch Government still penalises single mothers under 18, who are expected to live with their parents if they become pregnant. Until six years ago the Government gave them no financial support.
Braeker was shocked when she first came to Britain. “Young girls here seem to have babies to prove that they are adults. In the Netherlands it would just prove how uneducated and naive you are,” she says. “There you can have a boy as a friend, here it’s almost always about sex.”
There you have it, some facts from a model country.
Ah, but I’m simply a misinformed fool. Does a fool have such great capacity to mislead others?
Yes, you should have “opted out” early to save yourself some energy. I’m sure your readers are intelligent enough to identify a fool when they see one. Have more faith in them.
On the other hand, CM, there’s this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/may/11/schools.uk2
“The two western countries at the top of the disaster league, the United States and the United Kingdom, are those in which conservative campaigns are among the strongest and sex education and access to contraception are among the weakest. The US, the UN Population Fund’s figures show, is the only rich nation stuck in the middle of the third world block, with 53 births per 1,000 teenagers – a record worse than those of India, the Philippines and Rwanda. The UK comes next with 20. The nations the conservatives would place at the top of the list are clumped at the bottom. Germany and Norway produce 11 babies per 1,000 teenagers, Finland eight, Sweden and Denmark seven and the Netherlands five.
Unicef’s explanation is pretty unequivocal. Sweden, for example, radically changed its sex education policies in 1975. “Recommendations of abstinence and sex only within marriage were dropped, contraceptive education was made explicit, and a nationwide network of youth clinics was established specifically to provide confidential contraceptive advice and free contraceptives … Over the next two decades, Sweden saw its teenage birth rate fall by 80 per cent.” Sexually transmitted diseases, in contrast to the rising rates in the UK and the US, declined by 40% in the 1990s.
“Studies of the Dutch experience,” Unicef continues, “have concluded that the underlying reason for success has been the combination of a relatively inclusive society with more open attitudes towards sex and sex education, including contraception.” Requests for contraceptives there “are not associated with shame or embarrassment”, and “the media is willing to carry explicit messages” about them that are “designed for young people”. This teeming cesspool has among the lowest abortion and teenage birth rates on earth.
America and the UK, by contrast, are “less inclusive societies” where “contraceptive advice and services may be formally available, but in a ‘closed’ atmosphere of embarrassment and secrecy”. The UK has a higher teenage pregnancy rate not because there is more sex or abortion, but because of “lower rates of contraceptive use”.
The catastrophe afflicting so many teenagers in Britain and America, in other words, has been caused not by liberal teachers, liberated parents and Marie Stopes International, but by those who campaign against early sex education, discourage access to contraceptives and agitate against the social inclusion (income equality, the welfare state) that offers young women better prospects than getting knocked up. Abstinence campaigns such as the Silver Ring Thing do delay sexual activity, but when their victims are sucked into the cesspool (nearly all eventually are), they are, according to a study at Columbia University, around one-third less likely to use contraceptives, as they are not “prepared for an experience that they have promised to forgo”. The result, a paper published in the British Medical Journal shows, is that abstinence programmes are “associated with an increase in the number of pregnancies among partners of young male participants”. You read that right: abstinence training increases the rate of teenage pregnancy.”
Thanks illyrica! = )
Yes illyrica, I expected that kind of response.
I’m not sure what kind of point you are trying to make.
The article that I’ve provided already shows how good the Dutch system is.
What I was trying to point out was that despite having such a good system, there is social stigma that helps to lower teenage pregnancy.
I did not say that social stigma is the main and/or only reason that the Dutch has a lower teenage pregnancy rate, etc.
My comment at “November 6, 2009 at 10:15 pm” is a little social experiment. Thank you for participating.
In trying to point out all the good that liberal CSE can do, you missed out the supporting structure that is essential for liberal CSE to work. Quite typical I would say for liberal CSE supporters.
Read the article again: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article5208865.ece
“A study of teenagers in both countries found that while boys and girls in the Netherlands gave “love and commitment” as the main reason for losing their virginity, boys in Britain cited peer pressure and physical attraction.”
How often does any CSE talk about love and commitment?
“……the lower rate of teenage pregnancy there may have more to do with family structure than with sex education. Dutch children are five times less likely to be living in a family headed by a lone parent, divorce rates are far lower and fewer mothers are in full-time employment.”
Is there statistics in US or UK to show that CSE results in less single parents and lower divorce rates?
“Children in their final year of primary school have not been shielded from anything, but their teachers have continually reinforced the message that sex is about love and commitment.”
How often does CSE reinforce this message?
““The family is very important here,” she says. “Almost no mothers work full time; they see their main role as educating their children.”"
Can this ever happen in the US or UK or SG?
——————————————————————–
Here I wish to thank Mathia. If not for the articles and discussions in this blog, I would not have found a good practical system to adapt for my family. Yes, the Dutch system is what I have been searching for.
My analysis is that without a supporting structure, early sex education or abstinence programs don’t work well either way.
——————————————————————
By the way, ever wondered how good the Dutch system is against STIs?
http://www.minvws.nl/en/themes/sexually-transmitted-diseases/
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=2901
What about the Singapore system?
http://www.dsc-sexualhealth.com.sg/showpage.asp?id=35
Considering that CSE is almost non-existent in Singapore… What happened from 1978 (STI incidence)? And what is happening from 2002?
Also note the period between 1990 to 2000.