Condoms: facts and fairytales (2)

I often wonder why 25 years into the AIDS epidemic, we still periodically attempt to reopen the debate on the use of condoms using very dubious evidence and ignoring the vast consensus of medical opinion. What is so frightening and threatening about this bit of rubber?

Fr Alfred Micallef's assertions on the STD's mode of transmission and passage through holes are very simplistic at best, and some claims are actually inaccurate and misleading. The only source quoted is a book called Sex, Love and You published by the Ave Maria Press, and whose main authors are college level teachers in Religion at St Mary's Catholic School in Cortland, New York. I would suggest that this might not be the ultimate reference in cutting-edge medical research.

The facts are that we still do not have the solution to the prevention of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and probably never will. What is known and proven to work is the combination of the ABCD (Abstinence, Being faithful and Behaviour change, Condoms and possibly Circumcision, Disclosure). We now add an E (Emergent technologies). No self-respecting health worker speaks of "safe sex" as your correspondent does. There is no such thing. We aim for safer sex.

Nobody claims that the condom is the answer to the problem. It is not and it is mischievous to imply that we do make such an assertion. However, condoms, if used properly, can prevent 85 to 90 per cent of STIs. This does not, however, absolve us of the obligation to act responsibly by not being promiscuous, by being faithful to our partners, and, of course, not doing drugs. That is our key message.

At the end of the day what Fr Micallef's letter tells me yet again, is that the ultimate aim is not the unbiased truth as we know it, but the stubborn rejection of the condom, based, in reality (but never admitted) on reasons far removed from science. I can and do respect a person's objection to condoms based on moral arguments. I have totally different feelings for those who try to use pseudo-science instead of having the courage of their own convictions.