Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I read Dr. McCarthy 's letter " Crusading for Change in the Catholic
Church " published on BMJ 2005 ; 330 : 1210 ( 21 May ) and I'm writing for
I strongly agree with his statements.
In this field , the main ambiguity in condom's supporters lies in that the
condom is recommended surreptitiously not for its (unproven ) efficacy
as a protection against HIV infection , but as a " secondary " benefit
after primary ( proven ) contraceptive efficacy .
On the contrary , all epidemiological evidence tells us the best way for
avoiding HIV spreading is chastity outside marriage , and monogamy inside
it ( as Pope John Paul II used to say ) .
HIV infection is high in countries (i.e. South Africa ) with low
catholic presence , and high rate of sexual promiscuity ( no chastity
outside marriage , nor monogamy inside it ! ) , which deemed to be
considered eventually the real culprit of HIV pandemic .
Please , let's start having a more rationalist , and less
ideological , approach to this problem !
Best wishes ,
Dr. Vito Patella
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests:
No competing interests
24 May 2005
Vito Patella
Consultant Oncologist
Istituto di Oncologia " F. Addarii " - Viale Ercolani 4/2° ; 40138 Bologna ( BO )
Is condom both a contraceptive and a defence against HIV ?
I read Dr. McCarthy 's letter " Crusading for Change in the Catholic
Church " published on BMJ 2005 ; 330 : 1210 ( 21 May ) and I'm writing for
I strongly agree with his statements.
In this field , the main ambiguity in condom's supporters lies in that the
condom is recommended surreptitiously not for its (unproven ) efficacy
as a protection against HIV infection , but as a " secondary " benefit
after primary ( proven ) contraceptive efficacy .
On the contrary , all epidemiological evidence tells us the best way for
avoiding HIV spreading is chastity outside marriage , and monogamy inside
it ( as Pope John Paul II used to say ) .
HIV infection is high in countries (i.e. South Africa ) with low
catholic presence , and high rate of sexual promiscuity ( no chastity
outside marriage , nor monogamy inside it ! ) , which deemed to be
considered eventually the real culprit of HIV pandemic .
Please , let's start having a more rationalist , and less
ideological , approach to this problem !
Best wishes ,
Dr. Vito Patella
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests