Abstinence study: it works!

I've been reading about the Jemmotts' work with inner city kids for a while. There's an article in this month's Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine - one of the American Medical Association journals - about a randomized trial of abstinence-only vs. "safer sex" with encouragement to use a condom. The results were a significant difference in first intercourse and intercourse in the previous 3 months, during the 24 months of follow up. There was no difference in condom use between the two groups, when the kids did have sex. A repeat intervention decreased the likelihood of multiple sexual partners.


Here's the abstract:

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of an abstinence-only intervention in preventing sexual involvement in young adolescents.

Design Randomized controlled trial.

Setting Urban public schools.

Participants A total of 662 African American students in grades 6 and 7.

Interventions An 8-hour abstinence-only intervention targeted reduced sexual intercourse; an 8-hour safer sex–only intervention targeted increased condom use; 8-hour and 12-hour comprehensive interventions targeted sexual intercourse and condom use; and an 8-hour health-promotion control intervention targeted health issues unrelated to sexual behavior. Participants also were randomized to receive or not receive an intervention maintenance program to extend intervention efficacy.

Outcome Measures The primary outcome was self-report of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were other sexual behaviors.

Results The participants' mean age was 12.2 years; 53.5% were girls; and 84.4% were still enrolled at 24 months. Abstinence-only intervention reduced sexual initiation (risk ratio [RR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.96). The model-estimated probability of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up was 33.5% in the abstinence-only intervention and 48.5% in the control group. Fewer abstinence-only intervention participants (20.6%) than control participants (29.0%) reported having coitus in the previous 3 months during the follow-up period (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99). Abstinence-only intervention did not affect condom use. The 8-hour (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-1.00) and 12-hour comprehensive (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99) interventions reduced reports of having multiple partners compared with the control group. No other differences between interventions and controls were significant.

Conclusion Theory-based abstinence-only interventions may have an important role in preventing adolescent sexual involvement.

Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00640653

Elections have consequences (abortion, contraceptives, committees)

ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolis ran an interview with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on Sunday, January 25, 2009. The transcript is here.

Stephanopolis allowed the Speaker to gloss over her policy that does not allow debate or amendments from the House floor, or that no Republicans were allowed to see or vote in Committee on last week's SCHIP Bill ("H.R. 2 is rushed legislation by the Democrat Majority that did not hold a single committee hearing or allow amendments to be offered on the bill."), and were only given a summary at 5:30 AM on the day of the vote.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The president has made it pretty clear he wants this to be a real bipartisan effort. Yet House Republicans have said they have been shut out of this process. There were no Republican votes in the appropriations Committee, no Republican votes in the Ways and Means Committee.
PELOSI: Well, because the Republicans don't vote for it doesn't mean they didn't have an opportunity to.

While I believe that true contraception, as in prevention of the union of sperm and oocyte, is ethical, I had planned to move strait to the Speaker's comments about Family Planning funds. However, it appears that the President was listening to the voters, even if the Speaker hadn't.

Posted: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:41 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: White House, Congress

From NBC’s Mike Viqueira
The provision within the stimulus that would allocate money for contraceptive programs through Medicaid will be pulled out of the package.

NBC News confirms that the president called Henry Waxman, the chairman of the committee that inserted the contraception provision into the stimulus during the mark up last week, to ask him to remove the measure from the bill, according to a Democratic leadership source.

In short, the idea has simply become too controversial. Speaker Nancy Pelosi's defense of the program over the weekend, where she indicated that it would be a money saver, was not well received.

So that provision is out.

Complicating matters, both Minority Leader John Boehner and No. 2 Eric Cantor have told House Republicans that "all Republicans should vote against the stimulus" if it remains "in its current form," according to a GOP leadership aide.

They spoke inside their weekly conference meeting, behind closed doors. Afterward, both men came to the on camera stake out. The House will begin debate on the stimulus package late today, with no votes expected until tomorrow. Debate is expected to begin somewhere close to 5 p.m. ET.

The way your U.S. House works is that anyone who wants to offer an amendment to be considered on the floor has to go to a committee, the Rules Committee, beforehand.

The Rules Committee is a complete and utter tool of the majority leadership. (Emphasis mine, BBN.) It decides which amendments will be allowed on the floor for consideration. The minority is habitually unhappy with the result, as their measures, especially the ones that have a chance of passage or contain some political mischief or "poison pill" language, are barred. The Rules committee meets this afternoon to make its decisions.

So, besides politics, what's all the fuss about?

Part of the problem is the $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, ACORN, $200 million for sod for Washington, DC parks, $20 Billion for electronic medical records, and the emphasis on global warming research (with its increased costs for housing, transportation, food production and all aspects of our daily life).

One day after the 36th Anniversary of Roe vs. Wade and as the number of electively aborted children in the United States alone (non-medically necessary, not associated with "rape, incest, or the life of the mother") approaches 50 Million, President Obama overturned the so-called "Mexico City Policy" or "global gag rule." US tax dollars will once again be allocated to organizations that advocate abortion as birth control, and even those that lobby to change the laws of other nations to allow abortion where it is not currently legal. Every news article I've seen conflates the gag rule with limiting non-abortifacient contraception. However, the only restriction is that on abortion.

Another Bill now in the House and Senate, would wipe out abstinence-based sex ed and mandate emergency contraception according to the Rochester, NY newspaper:

* House member Louise Slaughter submitted the Prevention First Act of 2009 (H.R. 463/S.21). In the Senate it was introduced by Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The legislation focuses on reproductive and sexual health issues, and in some cases reverses Bush administration policies. It provides funding for comprehensive sex education programs, and none for abstinence-only sex ed. Other provisions include mandatory access to emergency contraception for rape survivors, and a requirement that hospital staff provide factual, science-based information on EC, including instructions that it doesn't cause abortions.

The bill would also force health insurers to offer equitable coverage for prescription contraceptives.

And then, finally (from the first link above), Speaker Pelosi on Federally funded contraception for the poor:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

ACOG: Abort or refer

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) have finalized and published their Ethics Statement # 385. It looks like they ignored the ruling from the Department of Human Services on Conscience -- or believe it will soon be overturned.

The ACOG pdf is set so that it is not possible to copy and paste - I have typed in the first bit, myself. Click here for the full document.

ABSTRACT: Health care providers occasionally may find that providing indicated, even standare, care would present for them a personal moral problem – a conflict of conscience – particularly in the field of reproductive medicine. Although respect for conscience is important, conscientious refusals should be limited if they constitute an imposition of religious or moral beliefs on patients, negatively affect a patient’s health, are based on scientific misinformation, or create or reinforce racial or socioeconomic inequalities. Conscientious refusals that conflict with patient well-being should be accommodated only if the primary duty to the patient can be fulfilled. All health care providers must provide accurate and unbiased information so that patients can make informed decisions. Where conscience implores physicians to deviate from standard practices, they must provide potential patients with accurate and prior notice of their personal moral commitments. Physicians and other health care providers have the duty to refer patients in atimely manner to other providers if they do not feel that they can in conscience provide the standard reproductive services that patients request. In resource-poor areas, access to safe and legal reproductive services should be maintained. Providers with moral or religious objections should either practice in proximity to individuals who do not share their views or ensure that referral processes are in place. In an emergency in which referral is not possible or might negatively have an impact on a patient’s physical or mental health, providers have an obligation to provide medically indicated and requested care.

____________________________________________________________

Physicians and other providers may not always agree with the decisions patients make about their own health and health care. Such differences are expected – and, indeed, underlie the American model of informed consent and respect for patient autonomy. Occasionally, however, providers anticipate that providing indicated, even standard, care would present for them a personal moral problem – a conflict of conscience. In such cases, some providers claim a right to refuse to provide certain services, refuse to refer patients to another provider for these services, or even decline to inform patients of their existing options.

Conscientious refusals have been particularly widespread in the arena of reproductive medicine, in which there are deep divisions regarding the moral acceptability of pregnancy termination and contraception.

For more on the controversy, here are my posts on Conscience, and here is a history of the ACOG and DHHS statements.

Texas teens form pro-life club

And, it seems that the kids in Coppell, Texas (near Dallas) are only "anti-abortion" because of the undue influence of their families and churches. From the Dallas Morning News:

Abortion rights advocates say it's even harder for them to organize high school students because of the focus on abstinence.

"We're up against a movement that has federal dollars going into public schools," said Kierra Johnson, director of Choice USA. "You compound that with what they could be learning in church, and it sets us back in terms of outreach to young people under 18."

Of course, the Dallas Morning News calls the club "anti-abortion," not "pro-life." In spite of the fact that the kids call themselves "The Pro-Life Club." The author calls for tolerance on the part of the "anti-abortion crowd but can't even bring herself to use the term the teens would prefer.

I guess the DMN doesn't keep up with the latest research. Otherwise, they'd know that the study on abstinence that was in the news earlier this month informed us that teens - whether they sign a pledge or not - who come from religious, conservative backgrounds are more likely to delay their first intercourse for about 3 years longer than their peers. I nominate the author of the article,Katherine Leal Unruth, her editor, and Ms. Johnson for Twits of the Year and definitely award them my own Yellow Brick Road award. ("Do Not Look Behind the Curtain, Ignore That Little Man." Or small woman.)

Bravo Coppell teens, their parents, and their churches!

Abstinence vs "plus"

The Texas Legislature is about to reconvene and the sex ed debate in our State is already in the news. (Free subscription required.)

Unfortunately, the news article blurs the line between sex ed for all children in our schools and the problem that some of our girls have multiple pregnancies as teenagers. What little evidence we have about "abstinence-plus" vs "abstinence-only" sex ed (some of which is reviewed here and here) is never mentioned, while the fact that our State teen pregnancy rate has dropped is seen as a failure or completely ignored.

Along with many of our local physicians, I teach the doctor's portion of "Worth the Wait." The program is taught in all our county's schools. The classes begin in the 6th grader (the students are 11 and 12 years old) and continue into High School health classes (through grade 12, or 17 to 18 years old). The course consists of 16 or 17 classes, including one on STD's that is taught by local doctors and one on the legal consequences, taught by local lawyers.

The main contrast between "Worth the Wait" and "Big Decisions," the program mentioned in the article ( available for download, free, here), is that in each of the 10 to 12 lessons, the latter emphasizes condom use for those who do choose to have sex. There's even a supplemental lesson that teaches how to correctly use a male condom.

Many point out that since some teens will have sex before marriage, and that many will do so much earlier than expected, the earlier these lessons are taught, the better. However, in my experience, the kids who are having sex before 17 or 18 are the ones who are also engaged in other risky behavior, including drinking alcohol and smoking, or who are being abused. (See the story about the 18 year old young man, here.)

I'm uncomfortable with early discussions about "taking action" to buy condoms and how to use them because it seems to actually endorse the idea that there is a healthy way to have sex outside of a committed, monogamous relationship - one that 14, 15 and most 16 and 17 year-olds are not able to establish.

I believe that the best decision is the one that parents, teachers and our schools should teach. We do not talk about the safest way to drive a car before they are 16 and have passed several tests or that seat belts will protect them if they drive recklessly, we don't teach them which alcohol to drink when they are under the legal age limit, and we never tell them that if they are going to smoke, here's the way to do it.

In my "How to live a healthy life" talk that I give adolescents and teens (and sometimes adults) I talk about the physiological and medical reasons we encourage helmets for skaters, seat belts in cars, and why we discourage certain other behavior. I mention the job of the liver, the differences in the body as it matures, the risk of addiction, injury, and infections. Then, I talk about the psychological and social risks and consequences.

For instance, can you really trust someone selling an illegal drug to be honest about what he's selling you? If someone pressures you to have sex without a condom, knowing the risk of even deadly infections (yes, I talk about condoms in my office) does he even love himself, much less you?

It astonishes me how varied the apparent ages of these children are - even through the High School classes (up to age 18). Some still appear to be prepubescent and some look to be fully developed physical adults. While discussing sexual abuse, I remind the 11, 12, and 13 year-olds that in the State of Texas, that it is absolutely illegal to have sex under the age of 14.

And in every class of 6th graders, there's at least one girl who raises her hand and asks if she could go to jail.

UK Teens, Abortion Rights?

The Family Planning Association in the United Kingdom is pushing a video called "Why Abortion" for use in schools teens, according to the Telegraph.co.uk website.

The laws in the United Kingdom differ in different regions. Abortion is still illegal in Northern Ireland, for instance. England and Wales, where abortion is legal and, like contraception and the morning after pill, paid for by the National Health System, has the second highest abortion rate is the second highest in Europe.

Nevertheless,

the Government announced that sex and relationships education will become compulsory in primary schools as part of a drive to cut teenage pregnancy rates. The National Children's Bureau also wants all secondary schools to have on-site sexual health clinics, while girls as young as 13 will be urged to have contraceptive injections and implants.

The FPA is offering schools the chance to buy a copy of the DVD for £25 together with a booklet that claims to explode the "myths" that having a surgical abortion can harm a woman's ability to conceive in the future, and that terminating a baby is always upsetting.

No mention that parents might not wish their daughters and sons to have sex at 13 -- and that the great majority do not. Or the risk that the 13 year old might be a victim of sexual abuse.

"Trained" (medical professionals) should shut up and perform

"Trained" medical professionals should just shut up and perform, according to the President of the National Family planning and Reproductive Health Association.

As mentioned in the last few posts, the right not to be forced to act against the conscience has been under attack by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The Washington Post article mentioned in my last post linked to the blog of Health and Human Services Secretary, Mike Leavitt.

Today, the Secretary wrote that he's not used to having nearly a thousand comments and many more "hits" on his blog. Take a deep breath and read the comments on each page.

Take a look, also, at this quote, in today's post:

One thing I did find helpful was the clear explanation of the ideological basis of opposition to physician conscience. Mary Jane Gallagher, President of the National Family planning and Reproductive Health Association, was quoted in Congressional Quarterly’s HealthBeat saying,

“Family planning providers work to provide family planning services. So it’s really not acceptable to the people I represent that this administration is considering allowing doctors and nurses and pharmacists that have received their education to provide services to now be able to not provide those services if they don’t want to.”

“Who’s going to provide access to contraceptives services if the administration provides this large loophole to deny services?"

CQ reported Ms. Gallagher continued: “Providers are ‘given an oath—now they get to pick and choose what they want to do' if a regulation is issued, she said.”

The Secretary answers Ms. Gallagher better than I could. However, don't you wonder that the conversation has moved from "choice" and patients' rights ("If you don't believe in abortion, don't have/do one.") to threats that we who oppose abortion should give up our practices, to the declaration that we trained and obtained a license only to be forced to do what someone elsed demands of us?

I'm quoted in Texas Monthly

Over the weekend, at the annual convention of the Texas Medical Association, a friend said that she'd read my quote in "Texas Monthly." I assumed she meant an old article in Texas Medicine, the journal of the Texas Medical Association. I was wrong. (And, maybe now I know why I can't get appointed to any of the TMA Councils or Committees!)

In an article titled, "Faith, Hope and Chastity," in the very liberal Texas Monthly the author (without contacting me at all, by the way) used a statement that I made at a 2004 Texas School Board hearing on the content of high school textbooks on sex education.

The board met to consider these textbooks in July and September of 2004. More than one hundred people testified or submitted written testimony. Those who testified in person were given three minutes each to make their case. According to Gordon Crofoot, a specialist in HIV and STD treatment and research, many of the board members appeared totally uninterested in his testimony. Crofoot cares for about one thousand patients in his practice in Houston and is currently seeing more young patients with HIV than he has in his 31 years of practice.

“These textbooks do not meet the criteria and are factually and scientifically incorrect in what they say,” he told the board, “but their major fault is in what they don’t say and the resulting consequences. . . . If we do nothing [about STDs], the direct cost over the next ten years would be $10.6 billion. Comprehensive sex education programs might reduce this cost by fifty percent. Can Texas afford this cost?”

Crofoot was cut off when his three minutes were up. He offered to answer any questions. The board had none. Later in the day, he watched as Beverly Nuckols, a family doctor in New Braunfels opposed to comprehensive sex ed, was asked about the implications of human papillomavirus for men. She answered that HPV affected women differently than men before stating her position that condom instruction, in her experience as a family doctor, would do little good. “Yesterday I saw a boy who had had three partners in the last month,” she said. “He’s had twenty-two partners. He’s eighteen. He uses condoms every time. Unfortunately, a lot of the times he’s drunk and so they break or they don’t work. I mean, condoms are not a solution for teenagers outside of monogamous relationships. They don’t use them right even if we teach them.”

I'm not quite sure why I was chosen as the representative of those who "opposed comprehensive sex ed." I can't quite remember telling the story, but I probably did -- however, I don't think I would say, "I mean . . ." In order to read it in the journal, you'd have to turn to the "continued on page 200-something." However, I believe that the story was to refute testimony that high school boys and girls should be taught that condoms are the answer to all risk from the consequences of sex. My more common story is to note that condoms are more likely to be used correctly by couples in a monogamous relationship, that couples get better as time goes on, and that if a hundred couples use condoms to prevent pregnancy, 11 of them will get pregnant within a year.

The part that I remember addressing was a comment from a nurse practitioner who stated that there was no risk of contracting the Human Papilloma Virus for a girl, if the male wore a condom. The concern, according to her, is the infection of the girl's cervix. This was about the time that the public was becoming aware that cervical cancer is caused by HPV 99% of the time. According to the nurse, the tip of the penis when covered by the condom wouldn't actually touch the cervix. I felt compelled to delicately explain that the most common human sexual activity involves ins and outs, and that there is much more contact and potential for spread of the virus to all of the male and female genitalia -- except for the parts actually covered by the condom.

Let me correct one thing: I'm not against comprehensive sex education. I disagree with some people about the definition of "comprehensive," and believe that anything beyond the basics of very boring biology - the medical and legal responsibilities of human sexual activity - ought to be vetted by the parents in the local school districts. The school is not the place to teach methods and techniques and condoms are not the panacea they're far too often made out to be.

I do believe that the State (schools) should encourage sex within monogamous marriage, since that is the healthiest for individuals, families and their children, and for the taxpayer. While some people do very well in different arrangements, it takes a lot more work and the risks are far greater.

Gynecology and Obstetrics Policy makers respond to doctors on conscience

It appears that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and ABOG (the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologistsmay be about to abort their efforts to change laws concerning conscientious refusal in Washington. It remains to be seen whether they will deliver on their promise to support -- without limits - the Conscientious Refusal to perform or refer for certain procedures. (I'm sorry, I can't resist obvious puns, even on such a serious subject.)

LifeEthics has been covering the controversy over the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology's "Opinion #385, Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine," which states that,

Providers with moral or religious objection should either practice in proximity to individuals who do not share their view or ensure that referral processes are in place. In an emergency in which referral is not possible or might negatively have an impact on a patient's physical or mental health, providers have an obligation to provide medically indicated and requested care."

First, "medically indicated" should be up to the physician and not dependent on autonomy - the patient's wants and wishes. Remember that Joseph Kennedy, the father of John and Robert, had his daughter lobotomized because she was too wild. At that time, according to Joe, the lobotomy was medically indicated.)

Obviously, this is not a moral obligation - but one that can be enforced by the use of the words "standard practice" and "standard reproductive services." In other words, abort, refer, or face lawsuits and risk your board certification. And the definition of "emergency" varies.

We also reported that the Secretary of Health, Michael O. Leavitt, had written to the Presidents of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the professional organization that supposedly sets the standard for these professionals, and the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology which certifies and tests OB/Gyns Presidents of ACOG and ABOG. He informed them that they were in danger of risking their own funding for training programs and status by any attempt to override the protections for Conscience in Federal funding regulations.


Even NPR noticed and covered the controversy.

The leaders at the Christian Medical and Dental Association have let CMDA members know that the President of ACOG, Kenneth L. Noller, MD, responded to the Fellows (certified OB/Gyns) last week and Norman F. Gant, MD, the President of ABOG, responded to Secretary Leavitt by letter on March 19, 2008.

Dr. Gant doesn't have a clue what the Secretary is talking about:

I am responding to your letter addressed to me asking about the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s stand with respect or to a physician’s choice to violate their conscience by referring patients for abortions or taking other objectionable action, or risk losing their board certification.” I can only say that I do not know where you came up with any suggestion, much less documentation, that the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology has ever asked anyone to violate their own ethical or moral standards.

And Dr. Noller reassures the Fellows that in this case, an Opinion is just an Opinion (and we're supposed to forget the attempts to change the laws):

We want to be clear the Opinion does not compel any Fellow to perform any procedure he or she finds to be in conflict with his or her conscience and affirms the importance of conscience n shaping ethical professional conduct. For example, while this is not a document focused on abortion, ACOG recognizes that support of or opposition to abortion is a matter of profound moral conviction and ACOG respects the need and responsibility of its members to determine their individual position on this issue based on their personal values and beliefs. We want to assure members with a diversity of views on this issue that they have a place in our organization.
Ethics Committee Opinions provide guidance regarding ethical issues. This Committee Opinion is not part of the “Code of Professional Ethics of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.” This Committee Opinion was not intended to be used as a rule of ethical conduct which could be used to affect an individuals initial or continuing Fellowship in ACOG. Similarly, it is not cited in the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s “Bulletin for 2008,” and “Bulletin for 2008 Maintanence of Certification” and an obstetrician-gynecologist’s board certification is not determined or jeopardized by his or her adherence to this Opinion.
Conscience has an important role in the ethical practice of medicine. While this Opinion attempted to provide guidance for balancing the critical role of conscience with a woman’s right to access reproductive medicine, the Executive Committee has noted the uncertain and mixed interpretation of this Opinion. Thus, the Executive Committee has instructed the Committee on Ethics to hold a special meeting as soon as possible to reevaluate ACOG Committee Opinion #385.

Colorado's Human Life Amendment

Although Time Magazine, the Denver Post and the blogs insist on calling it the "fertilized egg rights" law, Colorado's State Supreme Court has approved the wording for a proposed "Human Life Amendment." The proponents of the amendment need 76,000 signatures in order to get the initiative on the November, 2008 ballot.

The Chicago Tribune reporter at least understands that after fertilization we are talking about an "embryo." The Trib even found three ethicists who agree that the human embryo is alive. Which puts them in opposition Justice Blackburn’s opinion ( which medical school did he go to, anyway?) in Roe v. Wade that no one knows when life begins.

Unfortunately all three of those ethicists are much more worried about the definition and description of the qualities and abilities of those living humans they deem worthy of “personhood” than whether or not it is acceptable to discriminate between which humans are persons or not. Their main objection seems to be that protection of the inalienable right not to be killed, enslaved or treated as research material “would cause a lot of problems." (I'll bet that they disagree with the Dred Scot opinion, though. Overturning that one sure caused a lot of problems.)

U.S. law, based as it is on “unalienable rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, should absolutely prevent courts, laws and ethicists from infringement of the right not to be killed or enslaved. Ethicists – of all people – shouldn’t need a lawyer to understand that the full exercise of unalienable rights affects infants, children, the mentally disabled and the mentally ill. Parents have special duties to their children and children can't claim the same expression of liberty (drinking, driving, entering into contracts) that their parents do. There are legal precedents for dealing with the “problems” posed by the varying abilities of the mentally ill and disabled as well as for minors – including very young infants who can legally be restrained against their will (in a crib, playpen or car seat).

The “ethicists” in the Tribune article, as well as readers' comments in both papers and in blogs all over the internet, bring out every pro-abortion objection except the coat hanger. They warn us that fertile women will be “monitored,” that women who miscarry or who drink a glass of wine will be prosecuted. They insist that if State law recognizes the human being as a person from fertilization, we’ll have to decide whether to try to save every child at miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy or fail to enforce the law. Elective intentional abortions and manipulation that is intended to end the organization of an embryo - are acts which may be prohibited under law and the State Medical regulations. Spontaneous abortions (miscarriages), and stillbirths, like so many natural deaths, are impossible to prevent and cannot be prohibited.

Since US Supreme Court rulings (Roe v. Wade and Casey, among others) all base the “right” to an abortion on the autonomy of the mother and while affirming the right of the State to protect the child in certain cases, the “extracorporeal” embryo should be protected, somehow, even in current law.

It might be worth noting that the law requires determination of the cause of death of everyone who dies, and that Texas requires a special review of children under 6 and those of any age who die within 24 hours of admission to the hospital. Texas also names a “person” as living human individual from fertilization to natural death through our Penal Code. The 2003 Prenatal Protection Act allows criminal charges when a third party causes the death of an unborn child while exempting the actions of the mother or deaths due to legal medical procedures with the consent of the mother.

In fact, 3 men have been convicted of capital murder under our 2003 Prenatal Protection Act. The convicted men were abusive, the father, and intended to kill the child(ren). One killed twins at 5 months gestation but not the mother, the other two each killed mother and child. One man received the death penalty for killing a teenaged girl he'd gotten pregnant. There are charges pending in at least one more case, a drive-by shooting that caused the death of a pregnant woman.

Last month, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled in favor of the conviction of a man who killed one of two women he was sleeping with after the first told him she was pregnant. He told his second girlfriend that he would take care of the pregnancy of the first, and shot the first woman 3 times with a shotgun, once in the face.

As for "monitoring the actions of women:" a couple of county District Attorneys in Texas have tried to turn the law into an excuse to lock up mothers for endangering their unborn children. The outcome was similar to the cases in South Carolina a few years ago, when women were arrested after being tested as part of their pregnancy screening, required by that State’s Medicaid regulations. One lawyer made a speech to a group of lawyers that the Act could be coordinated with our State's Consent Laws to charge doctors with capital crimes. Texas State Attorney General has given an official statement on the intent of the Legislature that exempts mothers and doctors.

The handling of an ectopic pregnancy is well established under the doctrine of self-defense. With our current medical technology, the child cannot be saved and he or she is a direct danger to his mother’s life.

While we can’t verify the soul, we can verify which embryos are organisms: techs do it all the time in labs. The embryo, unlike the sperm, egg, and transplanted organs, is an organized organism. It's easy to tell within a day whether the oocyte is fertilized and which are not. It's also easy to tell the difference between embryonic stem cells and an embryo.

CNN objects to conscience

This subject again.

CNN, that bastion of upstanding plants ethics, objects to doctors with morals - or at least the ones who act on them.

The CNN video (not a "news piece") shows interviews with a woman who was refused contraception by one doctor and a second interview with another doctor who is Catholic and who does not believe that contraception is moral and so he does not prescribe it.

The reporter is shocked that 60% of doctors feel that it's okay to tell patients our moral views.

The reporter asked the patient whether she felt "rejected." The woman said that she did and that she felt that the doctor was judging her and imposing his morals on her. She said that any doctor who would not do what his patients wanted should not be in practice.

The woman isn't judging or imposing her morals on every doctor, is it?

Doctors make "judgments" all the time. We are not simply dispensers of products that people want. We must "impose" our judgment on patients who smoke (a perfectly legal drug) and drink (ditto) or who have become overweight from eating legal food and choosing not to exercise enough to burn off calories faster than they take them in. We are responsible for determining whether a patient is becoming addicted to pain medications, asking for a note for missing work when they were never sick, or a handicapped parking sticker when they're not disabled.

Much more often, we make judgments about the cause of a patient's symptoms or disease and how best to treat it. Our job is not to make the patient feel good about themselves, although most doctors I've met prefer to do so. What we do is diagnose and treat in order to help the patient be as healthy as we are able.

While I don't object to non-abortifacient contraception, it is an elective service in most cases. It is very rarely necessary to maintain the health of the body of patients. It is truly a "choice."

As I've said before, it would be simpler for people who feel that contraception is important to arrange to pay doctors who will write and dispense those medications and devices to go around to the areas where they are needed.

The alternative is to find a way to trust a doctor who will act against his conscience - to do what he considers the wrong thing for your pet issue - to do the right thing every other time.


Hat Tip: Blog.bioethics.net

UK: Teaching children how to use condoms no help

This month, the British Medical Journal (sorry, subscription only) has published a report on a randomized controlled study on enhanced sex ed that failed to reduce the numbers of pregnancies or abortions in teen girls. Essentially, the "programme" involves education for boys and girls 13 to 15 years old, including teaching them to obtain and "handle" condoms (how to put them on), role playing and games about sexual situations. This is in contrast to "Conventional Education" in the UK, which is described this way in the report:

In the 12 control schools sex education for third and fourth years varied from seven to 12 lessons in total, primarily devoted to provision of information and discussion. Only two control schools routinely demonstrated how to handle condoms, and none systematically developed negotiation skills for sexual encounters. The cost of conventional education varied, with individual packages starting from about £20. Few teachers had more than one day’s training, which would have cost about £180 a day, and some had received none or only a few hours’ training.

Luckily, there are some good reviews online:
"Sex Education Fails to Cut Teenage Pregnancies" from the Guardian.

"Role playing sex classes fail to cut abortions," from the Telegraph.

An enhanced sex education programme for teenagers has proved no better than conventional teaching in cutting unwanted pregnancies or abortions, a detailed research study said yesterday.

The programme was based on an intensive £900 training course for teachers that was then delivered to 15-year-olds over three years.

Five years later, conception rates were measured in 20-year-olds who had been on the programme and compared with those in young people who had not.
advertisement

The teaching system, called Share — sexual health and relationships: safe, happy and responsible — included group work, role play and games. The teenagers were shown how to use condoms and access sexual health services and were given leaflets on sexual health.

The programme and research was devised and supported by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Education Board for Scotland, now Health Scotland.

Teachers in the schools used for comparison had less instruction or none at all.

"Sex education "only does so much'" from BBC News notes that schools are required to teach sex ed from ages 11-14 in England and Wales, but there has been no such requirement in Scotland.

And from the November 23 "Learning and Teaching Scotland" web site, we learn that the program was introduced throughout that region last week.

The UK press reports that the teen pregnancy rates under 18 are going down, from 44.3 births per 1000 girls ages 15 to 17 to 42.9 since 1998, and declared this a "success."

Edited 12/29/08 for labels.