Category Archives: Medical Issues

Why Condoms Will Not Save us

May 29, 2006

The Washington Times reported last week on a consensus report on sexual health just issued by “wildly divergent political organizations.”  Yet, in spite of this much-heralded consensus, no agreement was reached on “what constitutes sexual abstinence, responsible sexual behavior, sexual orientation and ‘medical accuracy,’ such as condom efficacy.”

So just what does consensus mean?  In truth, it seems we are left with the same splits, divides and disagreements.  Consider condoms.  Long heralded as the KEY to solving problems associated with teen sex, you would think a national agreement on at least that one issue would exist by now.

***************

Why Condoms Will Not Save Us

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

Teen parents Dan and Christy[1] are just two people. I love them.  They are personal, they live in my world. But their two lives speak of the millions of children and parents in our country today.

Dan’s parents love him.  That has never been in doubt.  It’s just that they couldn’t remain in love with each other.  As Dan was maturing, he watched his parents argue, separate, reunite and then begin the cycle again–over and over again. Until one day, his mother sent divorce papers to his father.  And it ended.

Dan’s mother was determined to make a good life for herself and her two children.  She enrolled in a university, gained government assistance, and worked any part time job she could find.  She supported him in his school work, rented movies to watch late at night with Dan and his older sister, and went to all of his basketball games.

Yet, the strain of the family breakup was too much.  Dan missed his father, and his sister became ensnared in a cycle of drugs, truancy, and running away.  His mother, working hard to deal with each emergency as it happened, was glad Dan seemed to be motivated at school and surrounded by good friends.  She just didn’t have time to do everything.

Without a father at home, and with a mother and sister caught in a battle of teenage rebellion, Dan took solace in his friendships.  And he sought affection in the arms of his high school sweetheart.  Dan and Christy only had sex once.  But that was enough to create a new life, Allyson.

Today, Allyson is being raised most of the time by her great-grandmother, Christy’s grandmother.  Christy takes care of Allyson when she is at home.  She and Dan broke up right after she knew she was pregnant, and Christy has had a steady string of boyfriends since then moving in and moving out of her life.  And she is pregnant again.

After a paternity test proved Dan to be Allyson’s father, the court assigned him a support payment of $100 per month.  He felt a sense of duty to meet this payment and began a pizza delivery job, but with his basketball practices and the demands on him as senior class treasurer, Dan finally quit work, and his mom took over the monthly payments.

Dan has just entered college on a basketball scholarship, and he tries to drive home on weekends to spend time with Allyson.  He and Christy end up in court periodically to argue over custody arrangements that involve both sets of Allyson’s grandparents and her great-grandmother.  Dan’s parents, both mother and father, along with a sister who has finally settled down, and aunts and uncles who love him, support him in his role as Allyson’s father.  But it’s not easy.  Dan’s grades last semester were low enough to threaten his scholarship.

And what about Allyson?  She just celebrated her first birthday as a bright-eyed toddler.

In only twelve more years, Allyson will herself be a teenager.  Meanwhile, who will be the adults in her life to guide her and love her?  Will she grow up to seek love in the arms of a high school sweetheart?  Will she ever know what it means to have two parents at home, a mother and a father who love and hug each other at night in the kitchen?

When she enters high school, will a teen pregnancy and a baby create a problem for Allyson?  Or might they solve a problem for her?  Might a teen pregnancy give Allyson’s life a focus, a meaning–a glimpse of the love and affection that seemed just out of reach in the few short years she had for learning what love and parenting are all about?

Yes, what about Allyson?

[1] Names have been changed to protect the privacy of these individuals.

    

April 30, 2004 –Condoms: A Failure to Protect

January 3, 2005 – Teen Sex: What’s the Problem?

 See Archives for past editorials.

CDC: One Eye Closed

May 22, 2006

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

“Unprecedented!” screamed Bruce Trigg of the New Mexico Department of Public Health.  “Shocking!” lamented William Smith of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.  “Astounded!” wailed Jonathan Zenilman of the American Sexually Transmitted Disease Association.  “Pure Politics!” reported Rob Stein of the Washington Post.

Earlier this month, the CDC was roused from a one-year slumber.  The minute they opened both eyes, accusations started flying.  Reporters, following Stein’s lead, couldn’t type fast enough to get their own ten column inches in print.

News stories reported last minute changes to a panel at the 2006 National STD Prevention Conference in Jacksonville, Florida.  Originally, William Smith was slated to appear and address the question, “Are Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs a Threat to Public Health?”

Thankfully, people who care about the integrity of public health policy shook the CDC by its shoulders and woke it up.  A threat to public health?  Sexual abstinence until marriage?  Imagine!  Someone is threatening the health of our children by teaching them the medically accurate facts supporting sexual abstinence as an intelligent and desired standard of behavior?

The CDC woke up and took note.  Recognizing the pure political propaganda in the title of the panel, they took steps to bring the focus of the panel back to science and medical health.  You would have thought the CDC had shot the family dog.

Pure politics, Mr. Stein?  You are right.  But your reporting missed the very essence of what is astounding.  In truth, politics form the very heart and soul of business as usual for Mr. Trigg, Mr. Smith and Mr. Zenilman.

Consider William Smith, one of the original members removed from the panel.  He works for SIECUS, a key player along with Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion and Reproduction Rights Action League, the National Organization for Women, the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network and the American Civil Liberties Union…all of these organizations united in attacking sexual abstinence as a positive health strategy.  SIECUS, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, GLSEN and ACLU.  What part of this alliance is not considered political?

And Mr. Smith’s personal expertise?  According to an Internet bio, at one time he was working to complete a doctorate in political philosophy.  And that’s not political?

Consider Henry Waxman (D-CA), who is also critical of abstinence programs and who weighed in against the CDC action.  Would you be surprised to know that Waxman receives a 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW?  No?  Good.  He does.

“On the votes that the Planned Parenthood considered to be the most important from 1995 to 2001,” says Vote-Smart.org, “Representative Waxman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.” And that’s not political?

Thankfully, the organizer of the original panel, Bruce Trigg of the New Mexico Department of Public Health told Stein, “I have nothing to fear from a balanced program.”  Good deal, Bruce.  That’s exactly what the CDC took steps to ensure.

First, the name change:  “Public Health Strategies of Abstinence Programs for Youth.”  Gone was the fear-based language promising a threat to public health.  Next, the CDC took steps to remove the student of political philosophy from the panel.

Who took his place?  None other than a board-certified ob-gyn.  More than that, Dr. Patricia Sulak “is the director of the Scott & White Sex Education Program. Her responsibilities include overseeing curriculum content and conducting sex education seminars for parents, teachers, healthcare professionals and various civic and community organizations.  And…

“On May 6, 1999, she was presented with the “Heroes for Children” award by the Texas State Board of Education. Dr. Sulak is a Professor at the Texas A&M University Health Science Center College of Medicine, Temple, Texas and the Director of the Division of Ambulatory Care in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Scott & White Memorial Hospital and Clinic.  And…

“Dr. Sulak is board certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, a Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and a Board Examiner for the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology.”

Reporters were half right.  With the CDC asleep at the wheel, this was a panel originally convened for the sake of “pure politics.”

Thankfully, the CDC was roused from its sleep.  It opened both eyes.  And for the good of our children, it took steps to restore integrity to the panel with a “balanced program” that included the contributions of leading medical experts in the field of adolescent health.

For that, they deserve our thanks.  Thanks!

 

May 2, 2005  –  Who is SIECUS?

May 9, 2005  –  SIECUS Redefines Humanity

June 6, 2005 –  Planned Parenthood’s War Against Choice

See Archives for past editorials.

CDC: Centers for Disease Confusion

May 15, 2006

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

There is no doubt that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is involved in heroics on a daily basis.  At the mention of the CDC, the mind conjures up pictures of people in white body suits racing across the world to halt the Ebola virus, sweeping Congressional offices for anthrax spores or carrying dead birds to the lab for studies on the mutations of the bird flu virus.

Click on the CDC Special Pathogens Branch web page, and you will find a long list of deadly and dangerous viruses ready to assault your body and do serious harm.   Filoviruses, Hendra Virus, Hantavirus, Nipah Virus…you get the picture.  We are lucky to have the CDC.

However, like all people and all organizations built on people, the CDC is not perfect.   It is courageous, yes.  And it is political, yes.

The Ebola virus is deadly.  Thankfully, though, it is an equal opportunity attacker.  An Ebola virus can spy any rather ordinary person just walking down the street…and attack.  Suddenly you have an epidemic.  No politics are involved.  We, in turn, attack the virus with full vigor:  quarantines, isolation wards, protective gear complete with masks and goggles.

The HIV virus is deadly.  Unfortunately, though, it doesn’t need to attack.  Instead, it enters the body with a special human invitation through sexual acts that send shivers of ecstasy through a person right along with the virus.  Most unfortunately, using sex as its entry portal, the HIV virus …and the long list of over 25 other sexually transmitted infections…is political.

From the very beginning in the 1980s when the HIV virus was first identified, politics took control of the CDC and healthcare system’s strategies in fighting AIDS.  The CDC was beset from all sides.  Panic gripped the nation.  How would we stop this deadly disease?

Many mysteries surrounded the virus, making the formulation of a public health policy difficult.  Yet one thing was crystal clear.  Men practicing homosexual sex were at risk and in danger.

In the 1980s, the CDC chose a course of action partly medical and largely political.  To avoid offending gay activists, it did not invoke its prerogative to close down gay bath clubs and condemn promiscuous and clearly risky sexual behaviors.  Instead, it held out its departmental hand with a truckload of condoms, coining the clearly non-medical nor non-scientific term, safe sex.

This satisfied the desires of a country weaned on free sex from the 60s.  It also placated a main stream media that was busily crafting the finer points of politically correct news writing based on redefining and outlawing words that offended liberal sensibilities.  Best yet, it delighted free sex advocates who touted the first billboard for Trojan condoms as a modern benchmark of enlightenment.

Twenty years later, we are struggling to deal with a major health crisis that has taken hold of our children.  The effects of the free sex revolution have finally forced the CDC to retract promises of safe sex.  Yet, the retraction is half-hearted and imbued with politics.

The same main stream media that sharpens its teeth on the bones of right-wing, radical, religious, fanatical victims it has been throwing to the lions for twenty years cannot be trusted to illuminate the dialogue on sexual behaviors with truth.  Even today, journalists continue to describe risky sexual practices with the medically inaccurate term safe sex.   “Enlightened” journalists have repackaged promises of safe sex in ambiguous (and politically safe) terminology such as safer sex and protected sex.

Why is this important for the average citizen to understand?  Because it is the foundation for confusion based on the use of politics to script a medical response to the medical crisis facing our children.  Adolescent sex.

What is the politically correct method of talking sex to our children?  Unfortunately for our children, the lead agency in politically correct medicine today is an agency that has every reason to know better…the CDC.

Copyright © 2006 Jane Jimenez         

 

Next week:  CDC: One Eye Closed

 

September 26, 2005  – The Gift of Fear

See Archives for past editorials.

Failing the Treadmill Test

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

December 19, 2005

At prices ranging from $299 to $4000, treadmills are the number one exercise machine in America, with sales reaching 11.3 million in 2003.  No longer dedicated to simple walking-in-place exercise, treadmills are specially designed to suit every possible need.

For serious workouts, treadmills can be electronically programmed to simulate hilly terrain and adjust to a runner’s pace.  “On the gimmicky side,” Consumer Reports says, “a growing number of treadmills load the console with gadgets such as fans, a CD player, a cubbyhole for a TV remote, and backlighting on the display that for some may evoke a digital watch.”

The popularity of treadmills should be a good thing.  Based on a report in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA, 1996), treadmills provide the most efficient way to burn calories when compared to other popular exercise machines.   Researchers asked young adults to exercise on six different machines, including a cross-country skiing simulator, cycle ergometer, rowing ergometer and stair stepper.  They found that subjects who exercised at an RPE of 13 burned approximately 40 percent more calories per hour on the treadmill as compared to the cycle ergometer, the lowest ranked machine.

So…if the popularity of treadmills is a good thing, if they are the number one exercise machine, and if they are made to suit every person’s walking or running style…why are we flunking the treadmill?  Yes.  A new study just published in JAMA shows that a third of U.S. teens would flunk a treadmill test.

Dr. David Ludwig, director of the obesity program at Children’s Hospital in Boston, calls the study results, “very concerning.”  As reported by Lindsey Tanner, “Ludwig, who was not involved in the study, called treadmill tests a good measure of fitness.  He said the results show that ‘at a time in life when adolescents and young adults should be at peak levels of fitness, there’s in fact a very high prevalence…of very low fitness.’”

The JAMA article comes at the perfect time.  Christmas pies and cakes abound.  New Year’s resolutions are in the making.  Surrounded by temptation, we attempt to compose a list of good habits and set a new course for our future.

Yet, the path to good health is fraught with challenges.  Treadmills, cheap or expensive, are only one part of the total program.

How do we put our teens on a pathway to good health?  How do we help them pass the treadmill test?

A website, 4teenweightloss, dedicated to teens, weight control and fitness tackles this question.  Armed with statistics demonstrating the seriousness of the problem, it gives suggestions and encouragement in equal measure.

It’s no surprise that parents are at the top of the list for creating solutions for teens.  “Parents,” 4teenweightloss says, “play a big role in shaping children’s eating habits….Parents have an effect on children’s physical activity habits as well.”

Our expectations for our children and our lead as role models for our children are the key ingredients in diet and exercise plans for our children.  Are we surprised?

Consider other threats to the well-being of our children…tobacco, drugs, fast driving, violence…and consider the role of parents in shaping the behavior of our children.  There is only one risky behavior where we waffle in admitting our leading role…the sexual well-being of our children.

When it comes to risky sex, sex outside of a lifelong, faithful relationship…marriage…we continue to look around for an easy fix.  In the same way we hope a grapefruit diet will take off pounds or paying out big bucks for a treadmill will create muscle tone, we hope that baskets of condoms will be the magical solution to unwed pregnancy, disease, and broken hearts.

A new year approaches.  New hopes.  New dreams.  New goals.  Good health is within reach.

If we want our children to pass the treadmill test, it’s a lot harder…and a lot easier…than paying $4000 for the latest and greatest machine.  It begins with us, parents.  Our dreams.  Our goals.  Our commitment.

May this year bring a renewed dedication to the well-being of our children.

Merry Christmas!

 *************

Good-Health tips for teens:  http://www.4teenweightloss.com/weight-loss-resources.html

 February 14, 2005 – All the Condoms in the World

 See Archives for more past editorials.

Natural Child Birth

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

December 5, 2005

Setting out the Christmas decorations, a child in the manger, watched over by mother and father, honored by shepherds and wise men, welcomed with love…it gives rise to thoughts about the wonder of life.

Those of us in the boomer generation have lived through a time of great human experimentation.  It has focused on the foundational definition of life itself, with stunning implications for our children and grandchildren.  We stand on the brink of the brave new world we read about in high school English.  And we have a solemn duty.  We must bear witness to the changes we have made to a thread of life that will trail behind as we leave this earth.

Once upon a time, a man and a woman fell in love.  They committed to a lifetime together and gave birth to children.  As each baby grew in the womb, local wives tales served to predict whether the child was a boy or a girl.  In the end, couples went to the delivery room with one prayer, “Let our baby be healthy.”

Today, babies are ordered up according to specifications, like picking out a Beanie Baby off the shelf, ready-made.  The variations on designing babies is endless:

  • In 2002, the story broke about a lesbian couple, both of them deaf, who chose to create a deaf baby.  Their son Gauvin was the second deaf child fathered for them by a sperm donor with five generations of deafness in his family.
  • Recent debate has focused on whether technology should be used to eliminate congenital diseases or disabilities. Many disability and gay organizations have felt threatened by the concept of pursuing “perfect” children.
  • In Britain, the legal barriers preventing a couple from creating a designer baby to help save the life of an existing sick child were eliminated in 2001.  Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis on embryos not only promises a baby free of certain identifiable diseases, but also allows “embryo selection” to determine the sex of a baby.
  • Chinese demographers warn that the nation’s social fabric could unravel based on sex selection that eliminates girl babies.  Figures published in Chinese media reveal 116.86 boys are born for every 100 girls in China. Since the 1970s, when China instituted its strict birth control policy, couples have sought ways to guarantee a son.
  • Sex selection in India and China is achieved chiefly through ultrasound scans followed by the selective abortion of female fetuses. In the United States, the Genetics and IVF Institute in Fairfax, Virginia, is pioneering preconception sex selection by means of a system that segregates sperm that will produce girls from those that will produce boys.
  • In England, Jamie Whitaker was designed by and born to his parents for the purpose of providing a genetic match to four-year-old brother Charlie who suffers from leukemia. Called “test tube baby treatment”, Jamie’s father defends the process by saying he didn’t select his baby for insignificant reasons like color of eyes or sex.  The Whitaker’s doctor Mohammad Taranissi says he is aware of dozens of other couples who want to undergo this same procedure.
  • Faced with high rates of infertility and a declining number of infants available for adoption, infertility treatment has become big business in the United States.  “Success” at producing pregnancies has given rise to the “problem” of increasing multiple births.  Twin births have risen 52% and triplet and greater births have quadrupled since 1980.  Multiple births increased by nearly 400% for women in their 30s and by more than 1,000% for women in their 40s.
  • In 2004, researchers in South Korea created 30 cloned embryos that grew to about 100 cells in size – further than any verified experiment so far. This meant they were able to harvest embryonic stem cells from one of the embryos. Internationally, scientists expressed concern that maverick scientists learning from this experiment will soon attempt to clone a baby. For the South Korean experiments, scientists used 242 eggs donated from 16 healthy women.
  • In 2005, the key South Korean doctor admitted to paying these women for “egg retrieval” in violation of ethical assurances the eggs had been donated.  Bioethicists warn of the dangers such payments pose for coercing poor women into risky medical procedures.
  • Insurance companies are coming closer to dictating gene profiling of unborn babies.  Many anticipate a day when insurance carriers will enforce abortion on parents with a “choose or lose” policy that refuses medical coverage for babies born with problems diagnosed in the womb.

With so much recent attention on creating babies, we must remember this is all taking place at the same time we are aborting over 1.2 million babies each year in the United States.  The reason?  No room at the inn…we can’t find a way to make a place for these babies in our lives.

Two thousand years have passed since the birth of the baby in the manger.  In the past forty years we have prided ourselves on modern progress.  We are busy manufacturing a world to leave our children, where babies are products of human design that can be destroyed like all products when they fail to meet manufacturer specifications.

It seems particularly important this year to look up at the sky and wonder at the majesty of babies created by the great Creator.  If we are dissatisfied with His grand design, how can we feel any greater satisfaction at our own handiwork?

Perhaps we would be better off accepting all babies that arrive at the doorstep, giving praise for their blessing to our lives, opening the door, and making one more bed in the inn.

August 1, 2005 – Signs of Life

January 17, 2005 – The Pregnant Elephant in the Room

June 25, 2004 – Unplanned Joy

See Archives for more past editorials.