Two sides of the issue

In the interest of fairness and responsibility presented herewith is Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral’s reply to my column of March 12, 2010 entitled “Deceptions”. The full text may also be reproduced elsewhere in the pages of Phil Star, space permitting.

Secretary Cabral does not attempt to contradict the several studies I cited supporting the view that there is no clear relationship between economic development and rapid population growth. She pointed out however that I conveniently fail to mention equally compelling and more recent studies by other academics that convey a contrary view. She thus faults me for distorting a healthy discourse on population growth by making a conclusion on such topic that has been extensively studied over several generations based only on those studies whose dates of publication range from 18 to 44 years ago. Unfortunately she also conveniently failed to mention these more recent and compelling studies conveying a contrary view. This means that said studies may not really exist.

The good Secretary likewise relies on logic in arguing that more people means more precious resources such as land, energy, food, water and the like will be stretched thinly to the point of un-sustainability. So, she said that population growth must be addressed even if the rate is going down because in about 15 years we may cross the threshold of the demographers’ estimate of 125 million for the environment to support our population. Specifically, with respect to food, she is in effect asserting that a larger population means more hungry and malnourished people. On the contrary however food and nutrition statistics found in Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) on line data base show that from 1961 to 2002, available world food supply per person has gone up by 24.4% and enough food is being produced for everyone on earth to enjoy a healthy diet. The FAO statistics for the Philippines from 1961 to 2002 shows that the food supply available for consumption increased in calories, grams of protein and fat per person per day. Sometimes logic is also flawed.

On the matter of the effectiveness of condoms in HIV/AIDS, Secretary Cabral wants to clarify that DOH does not treat condoms as the panacea to all our troubles with HIV/AIDS and that there may indeed be some leakages of the AIDS virus through condoms. But she says that investigators found that condom effectiveness is 10 times better than not using a condom at all (Carey, R.F., et. al., “Effectiveness of Latex Condoms as a Barrier to Human Immunodeficiency Virus-sized Particles under Conditions of Simulated Use”).

Such clarification at least proves that DOH does not subscribe to the RH bill’s premise that condoms and other artificial contraceptives ensure safe sex. Indeed Secretary Cabral says: that condom “is merely a part of our three-point campaign against HIV/AIDS known by the acronym ABC – A for abstinence, B for be faithful to your partner and C for correct and consistent use of condoms; that A and B are ideally the most effective preventive methods; but that many people cannot practice abstinence or fidelity to one sexual partner hence there must be safety net for them which is the third part or C. Continuing, Secretary Cabral says that they are not ramming condom use down the throats of the public but rather providing them a platform to make a free and informed choice because “we cannot force them to do otherwise so long as their acts are not contrary to law, legitimate sexual behavior between willing married and consenting single adults being a Constitutionally-protected right (White Light Corp. vs City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009)”.

It must be pointed out to the good Secretary however, that by indiscriminately distributing condoms for free she is definitely not promoting “correct and consistent condom use”; and that sexual behavior between willing married and consenting single adults is not a legitimate and constitutionally protected right because it constitutes either adultery or concubinage punishable by the Revised Penal Code. Such statement of Supreme Court in White Light Corp case is merely a by the way declaration or obiter dictum citing an American case which is not applicable here. Free and informed choice does not definitely include freedom to do something wrong.

For Secretary Cabral’s information let me just cite the following reaction of Fr. Jerry Reb. Manlangit OP of the UST Graduate School and author of the book on Bioethics on this indiscriminate distribution of condoms and its dangerous, subliminal effect on right thinking and well meaning people especially the youth. Fr. Manlangit wrote:

“Recently, I asked my students (30 students each in two classes in the graduate school whose ages range between 22 and 45), as to what message comes to their mind when a Secretary of Health distributes condoms to just about everyone. The answers I got were varied and very revealing. Here are the top ten responses: 1) that it is a license to have sex with just anyone, their friends, boy and girlfriends, even with gay partners; 2) that the Secretary of Health can just whimsically use tax money for irresponsible sexual behaviors rather than use them for vaccination, prevention of tuberculosis and rabies, etc. ; 3) that condoms completely prevent sexually transmitted diseases and are the “be all and cure all” against HIV/AIDS transmission; 4) that the Secretary is self-deceived on the safety of condoms in preventing pregnancy; 5) that if the parents are unable to educate their children, the Secretary can take that role from them and just educate them through condoms; 6) that the Secretary whom we expect to be a health educator contributes to promoting irresponsible sexual behavior among the citizenry; 7) that the Secretary of Health, instead of fighting colonial mentality, now welcomes with open arms the profit-driven foreign businessmen who manufacture condoms and make them rich at the expense of Filipino taxpayers.; 8) that it will embolden misinformed legislators to push for bills which when made into laws will be too hard to untangle; and 9) that since the Secretary of Health has already made the first move, she can do so continuously without taking into consideration the sensitivities and sensibilities of people with their religious, moral and cultural values; and (10) Is the Secretary also distributing condoms to her own children and grandchildren?

Save our grandchildren, Secretary Cabral from indiscriminate and irresponsible sexual behavior. Educate them by informing them about the consequences of their sexual behavior rather than giving them free condoms”. –Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)