AMA's Critical Stance on Abstinence-Only Education Challenged
by Mary Rettig and Jody Brown
December 13, 2004
(AgapePress) - A spokesperson for an association of Christian health providers says the recent statement by the American Medical Association against abstinence-only education has several fundamental problems.The American Medical Association (AMA) last week announced a change in its policy on sex education, stating its opposition to "federal funding of community-based programs that do not show evidence-based results." Dr. J. Edward Hill, AMA's president-elect, told The Washington Times that "if an abstinence-only program is proven to work, we're extremely supportive of it, and would be supportive of federal funding for programs that work. But we want them to show the evidence that they work."
Dr. Sharon Quick of the Christian Medical & Medical Associations says the AMA asserts some fallacies regarding abstinence-only education, the first being it just does not work. She says the second is that education alone will solve the problems of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Quick explains why she thinks it takes more than simply educating a person about sex.
"Teenagers often get into sex, drugs, and alcohol for psychological or emotional issues," she says, acknowledging that education -- while "a necessary and good thing" -- is a "head solution" for what may be primarily a "heart problem." That is why in addition to education, she feels other kinds of approaches may need to be considered, "such as strengthening parent-child communication, strengthening marriages and families."
Quick says these approaches have been shown to affect which teens will become sexually active before marriage. And she contends condom-based sex ed will not work because that curriculum is about risk reduction.
"You are not ever going to solve this epidemic by risk reduction," she says. "You have to do risk elimination." Similar in fashion, she says, to anti-smoking campaigns. That approach, she says, do not tell people: "Don't smoke -- but if you're going to smoke, [use] low-tar cigarettes."
Quick says there is no evidence that low-tar cigarettes will prevent lung disease, just as there is no evidence condom use will reduce the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease.
Quick is not alone in her argument about the effectiveness of abstinence-only education. In the same Times article that quotes Hill, an ob-gyn from Boston describes abstinence education as "the first mechanism that has actually made a positive impact on the devastation caused by the errant sexual education programs of the 1970s and 1980s." Dr. Eric Keroack then asks: "Why would we want to stop it?"
Why indeed. According to 2002 report [PDF] from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the percentage of teenagers, ages 15 to 19, who have never had sexual intercourse has increased among both males and females since 1988.
