For awhile I’ve decried the PC campaign of trying to de-stigmatize STD testing. The honest message is “if you’re going to act this way, you need to make sure you’re not hurting other people, so get over it — it’s anonymous anyway,” not “no one could or should think less of you if they find out.” Sexual attitudes have changed over the years, but there are still plenty of “prudish” people who might be put off by someone who risks his life in that manner (and needs to get tested as a result).
These beliefs are honest, logical and, from a medical standpoint, healthier than the alternative. A war on them might encourage people who should to get tested in the short term, but it undermines a whole set of worthwhile cultural norms. It also puts doctors in the position of taking subjective stances on moral issues.
So this article from Fox News/LiveScience caught my eye — not because of the “oh my God HPV!!” fad of the moment, but because of a survey result they report at the end of the article. It gives some evidence that, while the above opinion is logically sound, some fudging on the logic might be better for public health. I personally would go with the honesty, but here at Robert’s Rationale I try to concede evidence against my beliefs.
From the article:
“They surveyed 635 adults over the age of 18, about half of whom were women, assigning each to read one of three paragraphs about the vaccine, each emphasizing a different perspective…[one was that] the vaccine protects against cervical cancer [and another was that] the vaccine protects against cervical cancer and sexually transmitted infections….
“When women read that the vaccine protects only against cervical cancer, 63 percent indicated they were ‘very likely’ or ’somewhat likely’ to get vaccinated, compared with 43 percent of those who read the vaccine protects against cervical cancer and a sexually transmitted infection.”
Obviously, this makes no sense whatsoever. Even if a woman is monogamous or sexually inactive, if she’s willing to take a vaccine for cervical cancer, she should also be willing to take one that also protects against an STD. The extra protection doesn’t matter. And if a woman is sexually promiscuous, the extra feature is a bonus.
It seems, then, that de-stigmatizing STD testing could have ramifications beyond making the promiscuous feel good about themselves. Even if you wince at a crusade to mainstream the results of unhealthy behavior, you have to concede it’s bad for someone to forego prevention of a non-sex-related illness at the risk of looking questionable.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Loading ...
No user commented in " Survey: Women less likely to use vaccine if it also protects against STD "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackLeave A Reply