| NEWS
|
National
Metro
Africa
World
Business
|
|
|
| OPINION
|
Editorial
Columnists
Contributors
Letters
Cartoons
Discussions
Outlook
|
|
|
| SPORTS
|
Home
Abroad
Golf Weekly
Results
|
|
|
| FEATURES
|
Focus
Policy & Politics
Arts
Media
Science
Natural Health
Law
Education
Weekend
Friday Review
Executive Briefs
Fashion
Food & Drink
Auto Wheels
Friday Worship
Saturday Magazine
Sunday Magazine
Ibru Ecumenical Centre
Agro Care
|
|
|
|
|
Equivocation on AIDS prevention
By Folanke Sobo-Sowemimo
PROFESSOR Babatunde Osotimehin, Chairman of the National Action Committee on AIDS (NACA) was quoted recently in The Guardian as saying that "abstinence remains the best method of preventing HIV/AIDS transmission but when that cannot be upheld, the use of condom and remaining faithful to one HIV-negative partner are quite effective..."
Lest we forget, the norm is not remaining faithful to one HIV-negative partner, but remaining faithful to one's HIV-negative spouse unless the Chairman of NACA is actively promoting fornication and adultery. Faithfulness to one's HIV-negative spouse is not just "Quite effective" as the Professor wants us to believe. It stops sexual transmission of HIV absolutely and must not be put in the same class as condom-use.
The greatest problem fighting HIV transmission in Nigeria lies with the Chairman of NACA and the NGOs he supports and funds because while paying lip-service to Abstinence and Fidelity (A and B) they proceed to promote so-called "safe sex" with the condom (C) simultaneously. They should understand that abstinence and so-called "safe sex" are not mutually exclusive strategies, and that promoting both abstinence and condom leads to harmful confusion among the youth especially regarding what is right in the circumstance. The pertinent questions are: how many days a week should an unmarried young man or woman practise the so-called "safe sex" with the condom and for how many days should they abstain? If the condom is "quite effective", Prof., why bother the youth with abstinence? I strongly believe, Prof., that since condom is defective and since virus (HIV) that has no vaccine and a disease (AIDS) has no cure, only primary prevention offered by abstinence and fidelity is enough.
Prof., by stating that there are times when abstinence cannot be upheld, you are asserting that there are certain classes of people who are incapable of abstaining from sex; that some people cannot do without sex, which is another way of saying that such people live the life of a dog. Being a dog is fine for dogs, but human beings are not supposed to live like dogs. We know that sex is not like breathing which nobody can do without, and so everybody (young and old, male and female) can do without sex.
We know that living a life of abstinence from sex until marriage and fidelity in marriage could be difficult for some but it is definitely not impossible because the human mind remains his most important sexual organ. I work for an NGO that promotes abstinence from sex until marriage and we have recorded a huge success among Nigerian teenagers. So, Prof. many young Nigerians can do without sex before marriage. We teach the young Nigerian to resist the pressures to have sex before marriage and outside marriage. What our young people need is moral formation (abstinence-only education as President George W. Bush is successfully implementing in the United States) not classroom type secular sex education of the safe-sex or comprehensive sexually education approach which is deceptively called Abstinence-plus sexuality education because these violate the "latency period" of our children before puberty.
It is wrong, misleading and confusing for Professor Osotimehin and NACA to promote abstinence and condom use as competing and alternative strategies in the fight against HIV transmission. Those who claim, contrary to the official position, that Uganda achieved the feat of reducing its national sero-prevalence from 19 per cent to six per cent in a decade through the use of condoms, should answer the simple questions: Why has Uganda's neighbours whose national sero-prevalence have remained above 25 per cent not achieved a similar feat as Uganda? Could it be that they cannot procure or be given the same "quality condoms" or use them as efficiently as Ugandans?
The bitter truth is that Ugandans, encouraged and supported by their leaders, did that something, which their neighbours will not take the pains to do. The President of Uganda, at the World AIDS conference in Bangkok Thailand last July told the world the secret in a short speech: "In Uganda, we managed to bring down the HIV sero-prevalence from 18.6 to 6.1 per cent using just a social vaccine...with no medical vaccine and this was within our modest means. Individual responsibility based on knowledge, will be our best protection against AIDS and other future epidemics..." Uganda practised conduct not condom and their social vaccine was abstinence from sex until marriage and fidelity to an uninfected spouse. Prof. take note that even the Rockefeller Foundation has since acknowledged a drastic and dramatic reduction in sexual activity in Uganda.
Abstinence from sex until marriage and fidelity to an uninfected spouse could stop the sexual transmission of HIV absolutely and should be promoted without hesitation or equivocation.
- Mrs. Sobo-Sowemimo is with Project for Human Development (PHD), a Lagos-based NGO.
|
|
|
|
|
| BUSINESS SERVICES
|
Property
Appointments
Money Watch
Market Report
Capital Market
Business Travels
Maritime Watch
Industry Watch
Energy Report
Insurance
Compulife
|
|
|
|
|
