Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2008;336:185 (26 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.39402.527766.AD
Stephen J Genuis, associate clinical professor
1 University of Alberta, 2935-66 Street, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6K 4C1
sgenuis@ualberta.ca
Consistent condom use can reduce the spread of HIV, and Markus Steiner and Willard Cates believe condoms are the answer to other sexually transmitted infections. But Stephen Genuis argues that a more comprehensive approach is needed
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Clinical considerations surrounding the science of sexuality and reproductive health have routinely been hijacked by philosophical perspectives, economic interests, religious bias, and sexual ideology. Rather than dialogue about evidence based outcomes and credible health policy, most talk about prevention of sexually transmitted infections involves debate over mutually exclusive perspectives on sexual morality.
Proponents of approaches encouraging safe sex (or safer sex) are accused of corrupting youth with amoral values, and opponents are perceived as zealots who disregard scientific fact in imposing their fanaticism on society. We need to look beyond vested interests to focus on clinical science and public health evidence.
A fundamental tenet of medicine is adherence to scientific fact and experiential evidence to develop treatments and programmes that maximise and sustain health. That evidence shows that effective population control of non-HIV sexually transmitted infections requires more than condom focused approaches.
Firstly, condoms cannot be the definitive answer to
Read all Rapid Responses