The Catholic church is right: the condom is no cure for Aids in Africa [or elsewhere]
The countries preaching abstention and faithfulness have seen a drop in cases
[Kudos to the UK's Guardian for publishing this response by a Catholic missionary priest to a vicious and uninformed screed by Tanya Gold, Guardian columnist.]
Tanya Gold, writing on the proposed visit to Britain of Pope Benedict XVI, says: "Condoms can protect Africans from Aids. But who can protect them from Ratzinger?" (Ignore the bells and the smells and the lovely Raphaels, the Pope's arrival in Britain is nothing to celebrate, 29 September).
She continues: "The Catholic Church has long pursued a no-condoms policy … The former Archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Mwana a'Nzeki, told his flock that condoms, far from protecting them, contribute to the spread of the disease." These words are used to illustrate how wrong the official policy of the church is.
I disagree. The church cares for the victims of Aids.
I spent 17 years in Kenya as a missionary for the Catholic church. Often I was called to talk to, comfort or just stay with a patient dying because of Aids. In response, I organised workshops to make people aware of HIV/Aids and I planned activities to help those infected and affected. I can assure Tanya that many Catholic priests, sisters and lay people do the same every day.
The condom might work in Europe; perhaps it does in Latin America. It certainly does not in Africa. Those countries that have chosen to popularise use of the condom – like many nations in southern Africa – are now fast changing policies. Those countries that have given emphasis to late start of sexual activity, abstention and faithfulness in relationships have seen a dramatic fall in the rate of new cases.
According to UNAids, in Botswana 24% of the adult population is infected by the HIV virus, in South Africa 18%. In Uganda, after a two-decade campaign stressing the importance of abstinence and faithfulness, the figure is under 7% – a fact noticed by various international agencies, which are now quietly modifying their targets.
"Condoms can protect Africans from Aids," Tanya claims. Perhaps, but what I do know is that the only way to stop HIV/Aids is to ask people to lead responsible sex lives. Offering the condom as a panacea does the opposite. Perhaps this simple fact is lost on people who have never set foot in Africa, but parading the miracles of the condom simply invites people, especially the young, to be careless with their sexuality and so become prime targets of the HIV virus.
If the church is against the condom, it is not because it wishes Africans to die. On the contrary, more than 50% of all projects targeting HIV/Aids in Africa are run by the Catholic church, with many more run by other churches.
"There are 12 million Aids orphans in Africa," Tanya says. Perhaps, I do not know. But I do know who cares for them. Most of the thousands of volunteers who every day reach out and touch the lives of those infected, their families and their communities, are Christians.
The policy of the church is not the result of an obscurantist vision, but the realisation of a simple fact: the battle against Aids will not be won by condoms or antiretroviral medicines; it will be won by a change of lifestyle. It is sad to see that the interests of multinational pharmaceutical companies (which thrive on a large number of patients) are always protected by western journalists who have no first-hand knowledge.
Giuseppe Caramazza is a Catholic priest with the Comboni Missionaries institute who spent 17 years in Kenya[It might be difficult to reach drug addicts, but one would think that highly educated homosexuals might be taught, if they care.]
Giuseppe Caramazza’s arguments sound very similar to Dr. Edward C. Green - the director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies who is frequently cited by those who support the Vatican's stance on the non-effectiveness of condoms. For instance, in an article in the National Review, Dr. Green declared: “We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.” Green made this comment in response to Pope Benedict’s comments on the effectiveness of condoms earlier this year.
“The pope is correct,” said Green, “or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments.” He stresses that “condoms have been proven to not be effective at the ‘level of population.’”
The BBC's William Crawley, has the following to say about Dr. Green and the complex issue of AIDS and condom use. (Note: I've added the emphasis to certain parts of the text).
Dr. Green is sometimes described as an AIDS researcher in press coverage. We should be clear about his area of expertise. He holds a PhD in Anthropology from the Catholic University of America and studies public health strategies "at the level of population." He is not a medical doctor, nor is he a virologist, nor is he an epidemiologist. He is a widely-respected academic who examines the impact of various public health strategies in various populations.
In 2003, he published a book, "Rethinking Aids Prevention," which challenged the general approach to AIDS preventing in the developing world. Specifically, he argued that the most successful strategy for preventing the spread of HIV in Africa was not the distribution of condoms but campaigns encouraging people to reduce their number of sexual partners. Monogamy was a powerful behavioural defence against HIV, he said. Condoms, though technically able to prevent the spread of HIV when used correctly, have failed, according to Dr Green. Why have they failed? According to Pope Benedict, condoms encourage promiscuity and this drives the AIDS pandemic. According to Dr Green – who has no moral or religious objection to the use of condoms -- this strategy in Africa has had the counter-effect of encouraging people to engage in riskier behaviour while believing that they are protected by condoms. "This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction 'technology' such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by 'compensating' or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology," he says.
These conclusions led Dr Green to change his view on the usefulness of condoms in Africa. Notice that he maintains their usefulness in other parts of the world, such as the United States; he regards Africa as a special case for cultural reasons. [Interestingly, Caramazza also admits that condoms may work in places outside Africa.]
Continues William Crawley:
. . . The upshot is that [unlike the Pope, and presumably Fr. Caramazza] Dr Green strongly supports the ABC model in HIV prevention: "Abstain, Be faithful, or use Condoms if A and B are not practiced". In the same year that "Rethinking AIDS" was published, Dr Green was appointed by George W Bush's Advisory Presidential Council on HIV and AIDS.
It is vital that we have a serious debate about HIV prevention and that we locate that debate geographically and culturally. It is wrong at the outset to simply assume that an HIV prevention model that works in the United States or Europe would necessarily work in sub-Saharan Africa. Researchers who believe condoms are an effective strategy represent the majority position within the HIV prevention community.
Against Dr Green's concerns about "risk compensation", they argue that this points to a greater need for accompanying education programmes explaining the proper use of condoms and challenging risky behaviour.
The UN AIDS programme accepts -- who wouldn't? -- that "other components [of a successful HIV prevention strategy] include delay of sexual initiation, abstinence, being mutually faithful to each other when both partners are uninfected, and reducing the number of sexual partners. But the UN emphasises that condoms still play a very significant role and their promotion must be culturally sensitive: "Condoms must be promoted in ways that help overcome sexual and personal obstacles to their use. Complex gender and cultural factors can be a challenge for HIV prevention education and condom promotion. Due to gender norms and inequalities, young girls and women are regularly and repeatedly denied information about, and access to, condoms, and often they do not have the power to negotiate the use of condoms."
Against Dr Green's [and Fr. Caramazza's] claims that condoms have been ineffective in countries such as Uganda, the World Health Organisation maintains that "recent analysis of the AIDS epidemic in Uganda has confirmed that increased condom use, in conjunction with delay in age of first sexual intercourse and reduction of sexual partners, was an important factor in the decline of HIV prevalence in the 1990s." This statement references a 2003 research paper exploring the Ugandan experience, "The Roles of Abstinence, Monogamy and Condom Use in HIV Decline", published by The Alan Guttmacher Institute in Washington DC. (Read the paper in full here.)
This analysis concludes that "positive behavior change in all three areas of ABC - abstinence, being faithful (monogamy) and condom use - have contributed to the decline of HIV in Uganda to sustained lower levels." It's a long way from that statement to the claim that condoms are making the problem of AIDS worse.
To read Crawley's article, "The Pope and Condoms," in its entirety, click here.
Post a Comment