The attack on abstinence continues

The MI, based in Austin, Texas, is a non-profit organisation dedicated to evaluating scientific evidence related to sexual health and recommending the healthiest evidence-based options for individuals, families, communities and societies.

The group’s technical paper analyses two review articles published by the Journal of Adolescent Health and written by a team of authors headed by John Santelli. The authors of these articles claim that abstinence programmes “threaten fundamental human rights to health, information, and life.” They further argue that “abstinence as a sole option for adolescents is scientifically and ethically problematic . . . (and that) abstinence-only education programmes . . . are morally problematic.”

A team of highly-qualified MI professionals assessed the two articles to determine their scientific merit and the credibility of the claims. They examined copies of material referenced in the articles and examined them to determine how accurately the authors had interpreted the evidence.

The MI team explained, “Where provocative words and phrases were used (eg, “censorship”, “misinformation”), we searched the documents for these words and phrases. We also evaluated additional authentic references addressing abstinence education that had been omitted from this review article. As necessary, we consulted experts in the field.” What the MI team found were “a significant number of serious omissions, misrepresentations, deviations from accepted practices and opinions presented as fact.”

They further found, “Logic, if employed, was often faulty.”

The MI team concluded that the scholarship in the review articles was “generally lacking in rigour.”

“The authors employ nonstandard research methods. Key points are substantiated by non-peer-reviewed sources. The authors repeatedly state that a source says something when in fact it does not.

“Most review articles cite original source documents; these authors cite secondary and tertiary sources. They cite opinion pieces and editorials. They cite on-line news magazines. Although the authors promise to tell their readers when they use non-peer-reviewed references, they do this just twice — both times to diminish the credibility of reports favourable to abstinence education.

“They fail to mention that dozens of statements are not referenced. Finally, when discussing abstinence programme evaluations, they equate failure to prove an affirmative with evidence of a negative — a common error in logic — typically committed either through ignorance or by design.” The MI team found that a substantial portion of the review articles were dedicated to criticisms of educational policies influenced by morality.

The authors argued, for example, that proponents of abstinence education are primarily concerned with religious or moral beliefs and further stated that educational policies with moral components are patently unscientific. Although the Santelli team contend that such policies are in conflict with public health principles, they offer no evidence to support that view.

Based on their detailed examination of the articles, the MI team concluded that when measured “against usual standards of scientific evidence”, the arguments against abstinence education put forward by Santelli and company are “at best weak and, at worst, fallacious.”

“Abstinence education programmes are based on the basic public health principle of primary prevention.

“They mirror other widely accepted youth-oriented programmes that advocate risk avoidance strategies for drugs, alcohol and tobacco.

“Few, if any, public health professionals would argue against abstinence as the healthiest behaviour for school-aged children. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the only sex education programmes to have actually documented decreased teen pregnancy were abstinence-based programmes, a fact conveniently ignored by the authors.” I took the trouble to report extensively on this MI technical paper because many of the fallacies they exposed are being touted as fact by groups and individuals who claim to be at the forefront of TT’s war on HIV/AIDS.

Even the National AIDS Coordinating Council (NACC) seems to be going along with the “politically correct” method of pushing C-ondoms before A-bstinence and B-e faithful — a totally erroneous application of the ABC method of HIV/AIDS prevention.

As a result, falsehoods are being propagated while facts that could save millions of lives are being ignored.

(ssheppard@newsday.co.tt)