Watered down sexual health policy sent to Curia
Final version sent to Curia
Cases of Chlamydia are on the rise.
The National Sexual Health Policy, which took 10 years to see the light of day, is a watered down version of previous unpublished drafts seen by The Sunday Times.
Health authorities have consistently said the policy would only serve as a stepping stone towards a national strategy, but the 2009 version, and more so the 2003 one, provided a clearer picture of the way forward than the one released last month.
These are the more comprehensive policies of the three, delving into details about the provision of sexual healthcare and advice tailored for under-16s, and listing specific services and measures for prisoners, sex workers and gays.
Sexual health is an urgent matter. Initial figures for 2010, compiled by the Genitourinary Clinic, show record figures for two sexually transmitted infections (STIs) – syphilis (25 cases registered, compared with the previous record 21 cases in 2008) and chlamydia (127 compared with the previous record of 116 in 2008).
The rate of carelessness when sleeping around remains consistently high with 70 per cent of all those who visited the clinic in 2010 failing to use a condom to protect themselves against STIs.
For years the policy has been handled with kid gloves by the authorities who took great care not to offend the Church. This is why so many versions have been drafted over the past decade.
Health Minister Joe Cassar was the one who after all these years decided the country could no longer remain without direction in sexual health and during the policy’s launch said “there has been enough procrastination”.
However, the concern of upsetting the Church seems to have remained and sources told The Sunday Times that the final version had been sent to the Curia for its views.
A ministry spokesman confirmed it had consulted the Curia about the policy, and its feedback had been taken on board.
However, the ministry defended its decision and the spokesman said it had not consulted the Curia “exclusively”. She said the ministry had conferred with other entities and stakeholders but stopped short of saying who else was shown the document.
When asked why the final policy had been watered down, the spokesman said this level of detail would be featured in the final strategy, expected to be released in February.
The spokesman added that the 2003 and 2009 versions would be taken into consideration when the strategy was being drawn up.
When asked why the strategy was disconnected from the policy in the first place, the spokesman said this was not the case.
“The policy seeks to map out the clear direction the government wishes to pursue to inform the development of the strategy. The process started on the day the policy was launched and will continue in the new year.”
The approach adopted during the formulation of the final policy sought to be evidence-based. She emphasised that the previous policies were “only drafts” and “were changed, as drafts are expected to undergo changes”.
“The ministry has already established that one of the foremost priorities will be the conducting of research to continue to inform elements of the strategy for which local robust data is currently unavailable,” she said.
However, GU Clinic consultant head Philip Carabot believes there is enough data and agreement on several issues to start acting.
There was already enough evidence regarding the lack of adequate sex education in schools, he said when contacted.
“We also have enough evidence from the GU Clinic’s annual reports regarding the trends in STIs, as well as the unacceptably high levels of casual sex and failure to use condoms.”
“Research and implementation should run in parallel, with fine tuning as we go along. While it is true that ongoing research is very important, this must never be used as an excuse for delays,” he said.
When asked about the discrepancy in the versions, Dr Carabot, the lone crusader of sexual health promotion, said the 2010 policy was not something he would have written, preferring the original versions.
“However, what I personally think or would have written is now irrelevant. What is relevant is that finally the authorities have publicly admitted we have a problem and committed ourselves to solving it,” he said.
“The real test will come in February when we should have a viable strategy ready with a definite action plan as promised. No excuse will be justified if we delay a concrete action plan beyond February,” Dr Carabot stressed.
“As far as I’m concerned, what we need now is real commitment, determination... and some serious money!”
The final document of the sexual health policy is accessible at www.ehealth.gov.mt. Feedback will be received until the end of January.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
25 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
mary cala
Jan 3rd 2011, 12:57
One of my doctor friends who is the STD counselor on a largest STD dating site stdpal,com said the number on this site increased about 30% in 2010. And most of the users are very sexy girls and guys. He usually receives the questions from them about how to avoid the spread of the std in their sex life.
To stop the spread of HIV and other STDs, it's critical to test and diagnose everyone who is infected, and to connect them to medical care and support. This will improve their health and help them prevent transmission to others.
More than 200,000 Americans are living with HIV but don't know it (1 in 5 of those infected).
G Bajada
Jan 2nd 2011, 23:36
Who is running the country the Church or the Government?
Another reason why Article 2 of the Constitution needs to be looked at... and altered
Christian Sciberras
Jan 2nd 2011, 20:45
What's the point of sending the policy to the Curia?
Don't know if the title is there just to break some news, but I sure hope it's been sent to actually relevant departments rather than a religious entity.
Dr Inġ. Patrick Attard
Jan 2nd 2011, 19:39
"5% of all sexually active Maltese population had more than one sexual partner."
Sexual Health Policy Document p.13: https://ehealth.gov.mt/download.aspx?id=4368
Christian Sciberras
Jan 2nd 2011, 20:43
Did they interview 1% of the population? As much as statistical groups go, interviewing related subjects can only lead to major inaccuracies.
john galea
Jan 2nd 2011, 19:06
The Government is elected and accountable to its citizens. There is a separation between Church and State. The Church should have the opportunity to put its on views, as every Maltese citizen should have and other entities in Malta. However, the impression here is that the Church vets policy, and behind closed doors.. This is not Iran, and this should not be happening in this way. A period of public consultation, giving everyone the opportunity to publicly air their views (including the Church) is a better way forward. Otherwise, who really runs the country?
Albert Vassallo
Jan 2nd 2011, 17:58
Veru tal-biki, The sooner the church and all it stands for is put on the side the better for this pathetic little rock we live on!!
J.Tonna
Jan 2nd 2011, 17:51
Malta is supposed to be a democratic country.
But, what democracy is this if everyone may have his say except the Church which has more followers than any of the political parties in parliament?
Charles Grixti
Jan 2nd 2011, 17:46
Gee, I am now looking forward to a "watered down Curia".
Paul Caruana
Jan 2nd 2011, 17:07
This is an eye opener on the political control that the Curia inappropiately has on our democratically elected government, who supposedly answers only to the people.
Some time ago, an elected MP was waxing lyrical about the theocracy that is in power in Iran, and how much he would like something similar to be happening locally.
In this context, the phrase, "be careful what you wish for" acquires a new, sinister, meaning.........
Paul Smith
Jan 2nd 2011, 15:35
This just goes to prove that elections in Malta are just a charade and that once you elect your cronies they go to work for the church and that the church must sanction any big policy changes the people may want. In other words, the church is the head of state and unlike the British queen, has a direct role in government policy - you are not a free people.
Until this changes, you will not have divorce, you will not have an open science based policy on sexual health, soft drugs like cannabis and hard drugs like alcohol and heroin.
The church is destroying open intellectual debate and policy and you are living in the 16th century still.
No different in the UK, only we vote like patsy's thinking we have a government we elected to do what we want (change you can believe in - UK election sound bites 2010) and we get a government that does the bidding of big business to pay back for all the donations they received whilst in opposition. True democracy would be to allow us to vote on each and every bill presented to parliament.
J Oatmon
Jan 3rd 2011, 05:28
Your statement 'True democracy would be to allow us to vote on each and every bill presented to parliament.' - sounds ideal, but of course it could never work, that is why no government has ever tried it.
Setting aside the fact that most people are not knowlegable enough to decide on many issues - it takes weeks for the whole electorate to cast their vote and be counted, and that is too long for most decisions - a country would be paralyzed by uncertainty waiting on the results of a vote.
Someone, or small group, has to decide for all - here and now, not next month.
Democracy is always flawed but is much better, than say the African way of doing things, or the communists - at least democracy works OK for most.
Ramon Casha
Jan 2nd 2011, 15:31
It is shocking that this government would compromise the health of its citizens to appease a religious institution.
It is time that the government and the church were kept at arm's length. The sexual health policy should be set by medical experts based on scientific research, not by theologians based on religious dogma.
Wilfred Camilleri
Jan 2nd 2011, 15:20
All the sex education in schools and all the advertising on how to prevent STD in North America has not stopped the spread of STD and unwanted teenage pregnancies. The fact remains that teens and young people will do what they want to do especially when there is lack of morals and an attitude of everything goes. Those blaming the curia and the Church are trying to shoot the messenger. Even if condoms and the pill were freely and readily available to teenagers, unwanted pregnancies and STD will go on unabated, as they have in North America and other countries. The "just do it" attitude of young people usually precludes the use of contraceptives. What's needed is an attitudinal change and a better sense of morality among young people.
Charles Grixti
Jan 2nd 2011, 17:57
Which universe are you living in?
The truth is that STD and unwanted pregnancies would be much more widespread if it where not for a comprehensive sexual health policy. I live in North America and I should know. But the sad truth is that both the Roman Catholic Church and Islam are colluding to enforce their theocratic belief systems on the secular state as recently happened in Canada when Sex Education in School came under attack from these retrograde religions who each claim to have the truth about what the creator of the Universe wants or that God cares about the ‘naughty bits’ of some primate (i.e. humans), all the while each hiding their true agendas. The Church has little leg to stand on when it comes to morals and it should clean its own house before claims a divine right to being the supreme moral authority on earth!
Such hypocrisy!
R Busuttil
Jan 2nd 2011, 14:44
What a totally pathetic lot we have governing us. Can anyone from our esteemed honourables!! explain to me what the church has to do with all this? Of course, in their minds the word sex brings up two things, taboo for the ultra conservatives who think that its their duty to impose their religious befiefs on the population and for the others a fear of upsetting the church which has more to do about loosing precious votes(especially of the older generation), than any religious issue. Where are our more open minded younger generation in our parliament? Do they close an eye to these things? The first comment by Joe Brincat says it all "vote Gonzi (Lawrence) get Gonzi (Mikiel)"
Malcolm Borg
Jan 2nd 2011, 13:53
This is absolutely unacceptable. Just because the Church is so obsessed with anything that has to do with sex doesn't mean that it has the privilege of the Government asking it for its opinion. When are we going to learn? We should be governed by a POLITICAL party which governs people of each and every belief.
When will we grow up and realize that we won't go to hell and won't disappoint God if we disagree with the Church?!
Kurt G Pace
Jan 2nd 2011, 13:50
How completely idiotic
Robert Callus
Jan 2nd 2011, 13:41
The Curia is the least objective organization that can give feedback on this issue. For the simple reason that it believes in dogma. Some things may be "wrong" not because they are proven to be harmful (like STI's) but because they go against religious principles that have been written hundreds of years ago, when certain diseases didn't even exist, let alone recognized.
I comment Dr Carabott for doing a good job even if against he has to go against the current. This is our health and that of future generations that we are talking about. Not a joke.
Having said that this is all in conformity with all government policy regarding our health - not a priority.
stanley Bonello
Jan 2nd 2011, 13:09
Are we talking about religious issues or health issues? Why on earth is the Curia being sought for consulation? We already know what the answer, if any, will be. Are we still living in 16 century with the inquisition? Who cares what the Curia says when there are serious health issues involved!!!
Eric gahn
Jan 2nd 2011, 12:42
It is well known scientific dogma that in Malta we have watered down STD's and teenage pregnancies.
Who on Earth is sanctioning these things? Whoever it is, they have murder through inaction on thier hands.
Josephine Bugeja
Jan 2nd 2011, 12:37
Is the Church going to contest the elections next time round? If so, one might consider voting for its candidates and, at least, have the benefit of direct Church rule rather than what might seem to be Church rule vicariously through others. Wouldn't it be more convenient to change the Constitution and make Malta a theocracy rather than a republic? Who governs in this backwater of Europe? Who rules in this medieval time-warp? Will bishops anoint Maltese Prime Ministers soon? Aren't we the laughing stock of the democratic world? Studies and the "collection of data" appear to have become a pretext for avoiding stepping on the Church's dainty toes - same as with divorce. Setting up a family institute to study what exactly? In which democratic country is the Church asked to scrutinize government policy? For what reason? To block out any mention of condoms? Church teaching on condoms is ethically unsound. Even were one to go by Church teaching forbidding contraception, it is the intention that renders a decision ethical or unethical and if the intention is to avoid transmitting disease, then it is a morally and ethically correct decision. The Church has no mandate to govern the country.
edwin abela
Jan 2nd 2011, 12:22
Whatever happened to separation of powers? Keeping Church and state at arms' length from each other? Like with all things on this bigot-fest rock rather than separation (sic!) or, god forbid, divorcing the two, for the benefit of Challie citizen, we have blatant co-habitation of the state and the curia with the former constantly treading on eggshells not to upset the latter in any way, shape or form. This (caricature of a long-awaited sexual health policy) is another classic example of foregoing what is desperately needed, sensible and beneficial to our society, in favour of a pathetic exercise in self-censorship and appeasement! Shame, shame, shame!
Dr.Emmanuel BEZZINA,MA,LL.D.
Jan 2nd 2011, 12:21
There are several Churches,Religions,Faith Institutions / Organizations,Belief Groups set,existing,established in Malta which constitutionally is legally permissible: have the Health Authorities consulted all these to work out a Sexual Health Policy [ how embarrassing it keeps getting for this country to stoop as low as this ]? Are we an independent State or not and IF YES why do these idiotic health authorities even feel the need to consult any Church at all on matters that at the end of the day it is the State & its Citizens that are forking out the immense expenses resulting as a direct consequence of an overall ,inadequate Sexual Health Policy?
MALTA must grow up - our State need consult NO CHURCH for such a POLICY to be mapped out.This is not a question of hurting anybody`s feelings and if it indeed irritated anybody,it is still immaterial as our State is supposed to be independent & sovereign [ sic!?!] and not the groveller of any religious institution.So let us cut off this crap.YEARS ago I was one of the pioneers to commence a direct affacement to a National Sexual Health Policy for which I was inquisitionally condemned.Never Again please!
Joe Brincat
Jan 2nd 2011, 09:59
WHAT A SHAME ............ vote Gonzi (Lawrence) get Gonzi (Mikiel)......