www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Don't Blame Pope for AIDS - Greater Percentage Catholics = Lower rate AIDS

Don't Blame Pope for AIDS - Analysis Finds Greater Percentage Catholics Makes for Lower HIV Rates


SYDNEY, July 29, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A letter by Australian bioethicist Dr. Amin Abboud published in the July 30 edition of the British Medical Journal notes that "A regression analysis done on the HIV situation in Africa indicates that the greater the percentage of Catholics in any country, the lower the level of HIV."

Dr. Abboud's letter comes in response to an article published in the journal's June 4 issue which wonders if newly elected Pope Benedict XVI will alter the Church's teaching on condoms in light of the burgeoning HIV/AIDS epidemic. Abboud asserts that "On the basis of statistical evidence it would seem detrimental to the HIV situation in Africa if he did authorise such a change."

"On the basis of data from the World Health Organization," reports Abboud, "in Swaziland where 42.6% have HIV, only 5% of the population is Catholic. In Botswana, where 37% of the adult population is HIV infected, only 4% of the population is Catholic. In South Africa, 22% of the population is HIV infected, and only 6% is Catholic. In Uganda, with 43% of the population Catholic, the proportion of HIV infected adults is 4%."

The bioethicist notes that "A concerted campaign, also in medical journals, has been under way after the death of John Paul II to attribute responsibility to him for the death of many Africans." Adding that "Such accusations must always be supported by solid data. None has been presented so far."

Abboud concludes his letter stating, "The causes of the HIV crisis in Africa need to be found elsewhere. The solutions must go beyond latex. If anything, the holistic approach to sexuality that Catholicism advocates, based on the evidence at hand, seems to save lives. I would welcome an editorial on that or, as a minimum, some evidence based advice on HIV."

See the letter in the BMJ:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/331/7511/294?etoc#REF2

BMJ 2005;331:294 (30 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7511.294
Letter
Searching for papal scapegoats is pointless

EDITOR�Scalise and Bognolo ask whether the new pope will change Vatican policy on HIV.1 On the basis of statistical evidence it would seem detrimental to the HIV situation in Africa if he did authorise such a change.

A regression analysis done on the HIV situation in Africa indicates that the greater the percentage of Catholics in any country, the lower the level of HIV. If the Catholic Church is promoting a message about HIV in those countries it seems to be working.

On the basis of data from the World Health Organization,2 in Swaziland where 42.6% have HIV, only 5% of the population is Catholic. In Botswana, where 37% of the adult population is HIV infected, only 4% of the population is Catholic. In South Africa, 22% of the population is HIV infected, and only 6% is Catholic. In Uganda, with 43% of the population Catholic, the proportion of HIV infected adults is 4%.2 3

A concerted campaign, also in medical journals, has been under way after the death of John Paul II to attribute responsibility to him for the death of many Africans.4 Such accusations must always be supported by solid data. None has been presented so far.

The causes of the HIV crisis in Africa need to be found elsewhere. The solutions must go beyond latex. If anything, the holistic approach to sexuality that Catholicism advocates, based on the evidence at hand, seems to save lives. I would welcome an editorial on that or, as a minimum, some evidence based advice on HIV.

Amin Abboud, bioethicist

Australasian Bioethics Information, Chatswood, NSW 2069, Australia a.abboud@unsw.edu.au


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Competing interests: AA is a Catholic.
References


Scalise DM, Bognolo G. The new pope and medical ethics. BMJ 2005;330: 1281. (4 June.)[Free Full Text]
World Health Organization. Epidemiological fact sheets. Epidemiological fact sheets. http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/epidemiology/pubfacts/en/ (accessed 24 Jun 2005).
Statistics by country by Catholic population. http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/sc1.html (accessed 24 Jun 2005).
The pope's grievous errors. Lancet 2005;365: 912.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]


http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/331/7511/294?etoc#REF2

Doc, thanks for the links.
There's more here
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/330/7503/1281#109186

Why would you provide a link to that ridiculous anti-Catholic post there? It is diametrically opposed to everything we as Catholics hold true on this issue.

Condoms will NEVER be endorsed by the Catholic Church for "safe sex" because such is a lie.

Real world user effectiveness for condoms in preventing pregnancy is about 85%. In other words, its failure rate is 15%. A woman can only get pregnant 7 to 10 days per month. But sexual partners can get AIDS 365 days per year.

So the failure rate for condoms at preventing AIDS long term is much higher than preventing pregnancy! The Catholic Church will NEVER advocate this sick form of Russian roulette!

Why would someone claiming to be Byzantine Catholic promote/link to a post that repeats the lie that the Catholic church must reverse its position on condom use for AIDS?!?

What is your problem? What is your agenda?

When I read the letter you posted, I wondered what the original article contained (subscription required), and what was the response to the letter.

There was, I found, a lively discussion - which I thought was quite interesting for a journal like the BMJ - and which I thought others might like to read. Notably, the data and correlation presented in the letter was unchallenged. It was a strong point.


When I receive comments on a post or other publication, I like to read them, so I can better understand what those who disagree with me are thinking - and furhter understand the weaknesses of my position, or at least, my presentation of it.

The implicit idea that such material should not be read, is weird. I don't think that there is a member or lurker who has any idea that condom use could or should ever be advocated by the church; the risk of anyone being drawn into error by that response that you refer to is zero, IMO.

On the other hand, the sometime made suggestion that - at the mechanistic level (apart from user failure and mentality)- condoms are not prophylactic to some appreciable degree, plays into the hands of opponents. The post that you respond to illustrates that problem - of course, only to those who read it. Ditto quickening (although I think this is just tiresome to most folks); Ditto blastocyst.

Not according to the Vatican, and anyone faithful to their teaching magisterium.

Saything there is "prophylactic value" to using condoms to prevent AIDS is like saying you are practicing relatively safe gun handling when playing Russian roulette with only one bullet in a 9 cylinder revolver versus a six cylinder revolver.

That is a lie. You're still playing Russian roulette.

Document this, in paticular with respect to my careful words on mechanism.

I don't doubt that the overall threat of HIV to condom users is higher. But this is related to the mentality associated with condom use, and their lack of absolute effectiveness as a barrier. Overall, this point is very different than saying condom provide no barrier to HIV-transmission. Conflating the two plays into the hands of critics and should be avoided.

At the same time I am happy to educated about the Vatican studies of barriers to HIV transmission.

ps 1/9 < 1/6, so you are safer with the 9 chambers versus six. But in both cases you are at great risk for vanishingly small rewards; the risk/reward ratio is essentially the same in both cases and both games essentially equally unwise.

Ever hear of a website named "Google"?

Vatican condom Aids [google.com]

Vivid Chewbacca defense, Doc.

The google hits includes many news accounts, including statements from cardinals who reject the idea that condoms are an ineffective barrier to HIV/AIDS. In the aftermath of Cardinal Trujillo remark about the putative ineffectiveness of condoms as a barrier to the virus, the Vatican issued a statement on AIDS day:

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/heal...n_defends_anti_condom_stand_on_aids_day/

This statement makes very clear the point about "mentality" that I alluded to, and avoids the issue of condom barrier effectiveness.

The statement of Cardinal Trujillo can be tested and found to be either true or false. My guess is that the Cardinal has made no measurements to test his claim. If so he is speaking recklessly. He was dead wrong to tie the teaching against condoms to so flimsy, and readily falsifiable point. (What ammunition to opponents of the church and her teachings) The one reportedly given by the Vatican on AIDS day is more germane and, unlike Cardinal Trujillo's remark, objectively unassailable.

In any case, I think that we can agree that there Cardinal Trujillo's remarks are not magisterial teaching. Thus, while it is not entirely incorrect to talk about his statement as being a "Vatican" statement it is terribly misleading to go further, as you did - presumably inadvertantly - and suggest that it is part of the magisterial teaching.

Anything on barrier effectiveness from the Vatican Magisterium?