The Butler Eagle, by publishing the letter to the editor by Amy Merhaut, has permitted the promulgation of utter falsehoods, distortions, and unsubstantiated claims that calls into the question the journalistic integrity of the editors.

Ms. Merhaut's letter advocating an abstinence-only approach to sexual education (as opposed to a comprehensive approach) contains several claims, all unreferenced, that purport to justify her belief that hormonal and barrier contraception are not only ineffective at stemming the spread of sexually transmitted infections, but also dangerous. Her ideas are so fallacious and dangerous that they merit a point-by-point rebuttal.

Ms. Merhaut's tirade against oral contraceptives is disingenuous. She lists the side effects from hormonal contraceptives without any attempt to quantify the risk engendered by their use and states they are not 100% effective while excluding information on just how effective they are. While not 100% effective, oral contraceptives have an efficacy rate between 97 ­ 99.5%. [1]

As with all medications, there is some risk conferred by their use, but by Ms. Merhaut's logic no medication should be advocated for any condition because side effects can undoubtedly occur. The side effects she lists occur at various frequencies and appropriate screening of patients prior to use minimizes the chances of any severe adverse event occurring. Furthermore, age and other conditions that may be present influence this risk. For example, in women aged less than 24, there are only 6 extra cases of blood clots per 100,000 woman-years of use. [1] Ms. Merhaut repeats claims regarding breast and cervical cancer which are very controversial and have not been definitely proven, while failing to mention the incontrovertible evidence that ovarian and endometrial cancer risks are substantially decreased by the use of contraceptives. [1]

Regarding condoms, Ms. Merhaut states that condoms are not a sufficient barrier to the HIV viral particle while failing to state that her statement doesn't apply to latex condoms—the almost exclusive type of ccondom utilized.

While I do not disagree that abstinence is 100% effective, it can not be the sole component of sexual education. "Abstinence-only" education is doomed to failure because it is less education than it is religious indoctrination mixed with pseudo-science. Advocates of this approach would do well to read the report evaluating these programs where no decrement was found in pregnancy rates, sexually transmitted infection rates, age at first intercourse, and number of partners. [2]

References

1.Petitti DB. Clinical Practice. Combination estrogen-progestin oral contraceptives. N Engl J Med 2003. 349: 1443-50.

2.Hampton T. Abstinence-only programs under fire. JAMA 2008. 299: 2013-2015.