Group wants condoms in P.E.I. schools

About 30 per cent of Island youth have had unprotected sex

by Tom Henheffer on Thursday, October 1, 2009 1:40pm - 32 Comments

Group wants condoms in P.E.I. schoolsHigh schoolers in P.E.I. are having sex, and they need condoms. That’s the message from Hep’d up on Life, a publicly funded health group fighting to reduce sexually transmitted infections among teenagers on the Island. Currently, no schools in P.E.I. have condom dispensers; only a handful offer counselling programs where students can obtain contraceptives. Hep’d up hopes that will soon change: it wants to place condom dispensers in every high school across the province.

According to Statistics Canada, about 30 per cent of Island youth have already had unprotected sex. That’s far too many, says Hep’d up program coordinator Pam O’Neill. “We’re trying to make condoms accessible to youth so they don’t have to go to [the local drug store], where, in a small community, you’ll probably know the cashier,” she says. “We’re more ready to grasp the concept of harm reduction. Making the community safer is going to help everyone.”

Dale McIsaac is the principal of Bluefield High School in Hampshire, P.E.I. He supports Hep’d up’s efforts to reduce STI transmission, but believes giving students unrestricted access to condoms is a bad idea. The dispensers, he says, will undercut sex education programs, like the one his school already employs. At Bluefield High, students can get free condoms, but first must speak with a youth worker about sex and relationships.

O’Neill disagrees. She says the dispensers will give students who aren’t comfortable talking with adults about sex access to protection. Hep’d up plans to bring its proposal before P.E.I.’s minister of education later this school year. O’Neill thinks the appeal has a good chance of success, and believes the condom campaign is already showing positive results. “The youth are learning from it, it’s a win-win all over the place.”

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    Is there any evidence that making condoms more widely available leads to lower rates of STD transmission? That seems to be the underlying assumption here, and in my view it's a questionable one.

  • John Winslow

    If you're too stupid to understand the risks of STD's and decide not to use condoms, then frankly you deserve everything you get.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/adb215 adb215

      Wow. Because 16 year olds are always totally logical and never suffer from the It-can't-happen-to-me Complex. Fool…

      • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

        "Protected sex protects against the things that are worse than sex."

        No, it doesn't. It protects against those things some of the time. 97% per year in the case of pregnancy…which translates to only a 75% chance over 10 years. So people using condoms from, say, 15 to 25 face a 1 in 4 chance of pregnancy. And that's assuming they use a condom perfectly every time. Now factor STD's into the mix. Not pretty.

  • retired teacher

    Sensible high school teachers and resource people probably already have them located in their desk drawers

    • stephanie

      No, unfortunately they do not… Teachers are not allowed to hand out condoms AT ALL!!! PEI schools are very old fashioned still and will not allow teachers to do that!!! They believe having them and passing them out encourages and promotes teens to have sex!!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/adb215 adb215

    Kids aren't going to have sex JUST because condoms are widely available. And there are far worse things than teens having sex. Perhaps teens getting pregnant?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

      Actually there are worse things than getting pregnant (although I've heard it's bloody hard terminating pregnancy on the island): Getting (and spreading) HIV, getting sterile from chlamydia, picking up syphilis..

  • Richard

    Looking Far Ahead , Condoms reduce the chance of pregnancy as well as if the female is on birth control that helps out some as well. Being a mother and a father is a life time job as most of us know. Having an STI (Sexually Transmitted Infection) or as some know it as STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease) is a life time thing as well and its widely known that condoms greatly reduce the chance as well as not having sex. But do the majority of high school kids think of not having sex? I know when i went through highschool sex was all there was. So looking long tong term i think it would be great , some kids are shy and embarassed about these things and if they can go get a condom without having to ask and getting the feeling your doing wrong , sure some kids may abuse the system but every system is abused in one way or another , reaching out is what hep'd up is trying to do from my understanding and i support it.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/adb215 adb215

    I didn't say that. I said there are worse things than teens having sex, SUCH as getting pregnant. Contracting STDs is also worse than the actual act of sex. Protected sex protects against the things that are worse than sex.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    I know what you said; I was agreeing with you and taking your argument even further.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/adb215 adb215

    Apologies.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    No prob. As I re-read my own missive I see I could have been clearer with "there are even worse things than getting pregnant…"

  • jessybear221

    i totally agree with the hepd up on life program wanting to do this, and put condom despencer inside all schools, it safe, and it doesnt give the message to go out and have all kinds of sex, it sends the message that if u do, then be safe, i know i'd rather be safe then sorry!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    "Protected sex protects against the things that are worse than sex."

    No, it doesn't. It protects against those things some of the time. 97% per year in the case of pregnancy…which translates to only a 75% chance over 10 years. So people using condoms from, say, 15 to 25 face a 1 in 4 chance of pregnancy. And that's assuming they use a condom perfectly every time.<i/> Now factor STD's in to the mix. Not pretty.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    "Protected sex protects against the things that are worse than sex."

    No, it doesn't. It protects against those things some of the time. 97% per year in the case of pregnancy…which translates to only a 75% chance over 10 years. So people using condoms from, say, 15 to 25 face a 1 in 4 chance of pregnancy. And that's assuming they use a condom perfectly every time. Now factor STD's in to the mix. Not pretty.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    "Protected sex protects against the things that are worse than sex."

    No, it doesn't. It protects against those things some of the time. 97% per year in the case of pregnancy…which translates to only a 75% chance over 10 years. So people using condoms from, say, 15 to 25 face a 1 in 4 chance of pregnancy. And that's assuming they use a condom perfectly every time. Now factor STD's into the mix. Not pretty.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    "Protected sex protects against the things that are worse than sex."

    No, it doesn't. It protects against those things some of the time. 97% per year in the case of pregnancy…which translates to only a 75% chance over 10 years. So people using condoms from, say, age 15 to age 25 face a 1 in 4 chance of pregnancy. And that's assuming they use a condom perfectly every time. Now factor STD's into the mix. Not pretty.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/adb215 adb215

      So we should stick with teaching abstinence only? That's working really well in the US…..

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

        Did I say that? The argument is about whether condoms should be distributed in vending machines in school, not about whether their use should be taught.

      • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

        Did I say that? The argument is about whether condoms should be distributed in vending machines in school in order to encourage their use, not about whether their use should be taught.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    Is there conclusive evidence that making condoms more widely available leads to lower rates of STD transmission? That seems to be one of at least two underlying assumptions here, and in my view it's a questionable one.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/adb215 adb215

    Is their conclusive evidence that making condoms widely available leads to higher incidences of sex? That seems to be the schools underlying assumption. And it is far more dangerous. Denying the condoms unless kids effectively "fess up" to their deeds likely contributes to higher STD rates and more unwanted pregnancy.

  • Adam

    At the very least, it likely wouldn't lead to higher rates of STD transmission. I agree that the assumptions they're using may be questionable, but would this really make anyone any worse off?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    On the contrary, it is possible that encouraging condom use leads to higher rates of STD transmission. It may lead people to engage in more risky sexual behaviour than they otherwise would. Also there are always some precentage of people who use condoms incorrectly – these people think they're protected when they aren't. Finally, even those who use condoms correctly every time face some risk because condoms are not 100% effective. Even pregancy is not ruled out with perfectly correct condom use – the odds are 3% per year that a pregnancy occurs. STD transmission is higher than this.

    Finally, there is some empirical evidence from African stats that encouraging condom use caused increased HIV transmission. For example, the sole African nation to see a decline of HIV transmission in the 90's was Uganda…which was also the sole country to decide on encouraging "zero grazing" (abstinence) rather than condoms.

    And that's not even addressing the ethical concerns about whether condom use is harmful outside the realm of disease.

    When people jump to conclusions like this, it can lead to a lot of death and suffering. Sometimes there's more to the story then the supposedly 'obvious', intuitive narrative provides. It can lead to people being a lot worse off.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    On the contrary, it is quite possible that encouraging condom use leads to higher rates of STD transmission. It may lead people to engage in more risky sexual behaviour than they otherwise would. Also there are always some precentage of people who use condoms incorrectly – these people think they're protected when they aren't. Finally, even those who use condoms correctly every time face some risk because condoms are not 100% effective. Even pregancy is not ruled out with perfectly correct condom use – the odds are 3% per year that a pregnancy occurs. STD transmission is higher than this.

    Finally, there is some empirical evidence from African stats that encouraging condom use caused increased HIV transmission. For example, the sole African nation to see a decline of HIV transmission in the 90's was Uganda…which was also the sole country to decide on encouraging "zero grazing" (abstinence) rather than condoms.

    And that's not even addressing the ethical concerns about whether condom use is harmful outside the realm of disease.

    When people jump to conclusions like this, it can lead to a lot of death and suffering. Sometimes there's more to the story then the supposedly 'obvious', intuitive narrative provides. It can lead to people being a lot worse off.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    On the contrary, it is quite possible that encouraging condom use leads to higher rates of STD transmission. It may lead people to engage in more risky sexual behaviour than they otherwise would. Also there are always some precentage of people who use condoms incorrectly – these people think they're protected when they aren't. Finally, even those who use condoms correctly every time face some risk because condoms are not 100% effective. Even pregancy is not ruled out with perfectly correct condom use – the odds are 3% per year that a pregnancy occurs for someone in this scenario. STD transmission is higher than this.

    Finally, there is some empirical evidence from African stats that encouraging condom use caused increased HIV transmission. For example, the sole African nation to see a decline of HIV transmission in the 90's was Uganda…which was also the sole country to decide on encouraging "zero grazing" (abstinence) rather than condoms.

    And that's not even addressing the ethical concerns about whether condom use is harmful outside the realm of disease.

    When people jump to conclusions like this, it can lead to a lot of death and suffering. Sometimes there's more to the story then the supposedly 'obvious', intuitive narrative provides. It can lead to people being a lot worse off.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    On the contrary, it is quite possible that encouraging condom use leads to higher rates of STD transmission. It may lead people to engage in more risky sexual behaviour than they otherwise would. Also there are always some precentage of people who use condoms incorrectly – these people think they're protected when they aren't. Finally, even those who use condoms correctly every time face some risk because condoms are not 100% effective. Even pregancy is not ruled out with perfectly correct condom use – the odds are 3% per year that a pregnancy occurs for someone in this scenario. STD transmission is higher than this.

    Finally, there is some empirical evidence from African stats that encouraging condom use caused increased HIV transmission. For example, the sole African nation to see a decline of HIV transmission in the 90's was Uganda…which was also the sole country to decide on encouraging "zero grazing" (abstinence) rather than condoms.

    And that's not even addressing the ethical concerns about whether condom use is harmful outside the realm of disease.

    When people jump to conclusions like this, it can lead to a lot of death and suffering. Sometimes there's more to the story than the supposedly 'obvious', intuitive narrative. It can lead to people being a lot worse off.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    "Denying the condoms unless kids effectively "fess up" to their deeds likely contributes to higher STD rates and more unwanted pregnancy."

    You're assuming that, as the author did. You don't know it.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    "Denying the condoms unless kids effectively "fess up" to their deeds likely contributes to higher STD rates and more unwanted pregnancy."

    You're assuming that, as the author did. You don't know it for certain, and what's a bit scary is that you don't even know you don't know it.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/adb215 adb215

    I said "likely", which means I am not saying for certain.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    You don't know whether it's "likely" either.

From Macleans