A number of commentators have observed that too much of the coverage looked decidedly like things had been taken over by celebrity names such as Bill Clinton or Bill Gates.
While I agree that the "main hall" events of the conference had took on a distinctly "photo op" appearance, with speeches clearly geared to "large audiences", a perusal of the conference program paints a much different picture, with a plethora of sessions focused on all different aspects of the issues that HIV/AIDS presents. (If you are sufficiently interested, webcasts and presentation slides have now been posted on that site)
The disengagement of the CPC government with respect to the conference is disturbing for quite a number of reasons. First, it signals to the public that a major public health issue is not something this government is willing to address.
However, even more troubling is the elliptical comments from Tony Clement, Minister of Health, in regards to the conference. The assertion that "no rational debate" was possible worries me - it's hard to imagine what "rational debate" the CPC is talking about. For example, just what do they claim is debatable - that HIV/AIDS is killing people? Or, in a country like Canada, putting them on lifelong diets of drug cocktails that are no fun to live with.
A review of the CPC's Policy on Health shows a position that is deliberately vague and evasive in a great many dimensions, one that stays away from any hard statements except for this paragraph:
57. Assisted Human Reproduction and Related Research
The Conservative Party recognizes the need for federal regulation in assisted human reproduction and related research. This field should be governed by principles that respect human individuality, integrity, dignity and life. In recognition of the ethical and scientific concerns around research using human embryos, we support an initial three-year prohibition on embryonic research, and call on the federal government to encourage its granting agencies to focus on more promising adult (post-natal) stem cell research.
This is pretty much a rehash of the BushCo position on this subject.
Then, poking around the news this morning, I tripped across this article blathering about abstinence only sex ed program results. It's talking primarily about an American study, and one that only followed the students for two years (a relatively short period of time, especially when you are talking about teenagers who are growing and changing quite rapidly). There's two things about this article I find striking - one, it's appearance in an obviously conservative media outlet, second is the timing of its release, right in the middle of the AIDS conference itself. Of course the cited study fails to account for the long term price of ignorance - which is now emerging as an increasing rate of HIV infection in parts of Africa that had experienced major declines in their infection rates.
As Tom Paine.com points out, the abstinence only sex ed discussion is deeply troubling when one considers what these programs leave out. US Government policy surrounding the funding of NGO AIDS prevention programs in other countries is written in a way that effectively prohibits teaching about condoms and other effective birth and disease control techniques.
When Clement starts claiming that "rational debate" isn't possible, I have to wonder if it really doesn't boil down to another case of sucking up to the teat of BushCo favour, but not wanting to admit it publicly.
As commentor "Quixote" pointed out on his personal blog, the government is conduction "Stealth Consultations" online. I suspect that like a lot of the Alberta Governments "public consultations", this one is designed to restrict the respondents (by being online, you've already restricted your sample to the part of the public this is "online", and the subset of those people who are willing and able to trawl through the government's website looking for these things. (Notably the government's main web presence doesn't even hint at this consultation's existence)
With a government whose desire to be secretive about what they really represent, one has to be cautious when obscure phrases like "no rational debate" are used. I suspect strongly that the CPC is rather inclined to lean towards "abstinence only" sex education.
BTW - I don't disagree with teaching abstinence - I disagree with teaching that without teaching about other aspects of the subject. Teens need to understand topics like the use of various forms of birth control in honest terms, as well as some of the psychological aspects of sexuality. Abstinence by itself is inadequate, and is more of a "head-in-sand" approach to the whole topic - one that ultimately does not achieve the desired goals in terms of public health.
No comments:
Post a Comment