Some people scoff at the idea of providing clean needles to drug users.

And while it does seem a bit stupid, would you want a drug user to be jamming a dirty needle into his forearm? Why not offer the addicted a bit of solace in their situation. At the very least, it may prevent them from contracting AIDs. But is this perpetuating drug use as well as promoting it?
Ask 10 people and you may get 10 different answers, although I’m sure most people would be primarily concerned that they don’t want the drug user to get the HIV virus. So what about Ontario’s plan to offer free immunizations to Grade 8 girls before they get sexually active?

Once again we’re faced with a similar question and if we concur with the idea that this is good, doesn’t this line of thinking promote drug use and promiscuity?

Well, yes and no.
Prevention is the best medicine. It’s no secret that the health care system would save millions if people took better care of their health. Promotion of preventative health has become more popular in recent years.

However, publicizing something that may be for the greater good of society also brings with it some unwanted promotion. When kids don’t know there are cookies in the cupboard, they may settle for fruit for dessert.

That, of course, is simplifying the issue. However, it’s not meant to trivialize it. Perhaps there is a place for informing pre-teens about sexual diseases, just as there is a place to warn them about the dangers of lung cancer and drug use.

The problem with offering pre-teen girls a vaccine prior to the years of sexual activity is that it makes a broad assumption that teenage girls are sexually active. It also makes the assumption that this is something that should be offer “en masse,” meaning the numbers of those out there who will be sexually active justifies it.
Denying young girls from receiving immunization against something that could lead to cervical cancer is not the point. But if prevention is the best medicine to stop cervical cancer that could come through sexual activity, than maybe there is a case for an alternative approach.

Why not go the ever-unpopular abstinence route? That route is not wrought with peril like the other one, where single teenage moms serve as an obvious warning.

Of course, if you go by the normal behaviour portrayed by teenagers in movies and television, then everybody is doing it and those who aren’t are missing out. But perhaps they aren’t missing out on anything at all (that is to say that missing out on sexual diseases, unwanted pregnancy and the unfortunate names that go along with sexually active woman (and I’m not sure why guys get off scott free).)

What if everybody isn’t doing?

Well if that’s the case, it certainly doesn’t make good TV viewing by today’s standards. Losing ones virginity has become the ultimate quest for teenagers, who aren’t real boys or girls until they’ve achieved that particular “badge of honour.”

Those who believe that that three-letter word we hate to say is limited to the confines of marriage may have a point. Why wouldn’t we wait? Better yet, why wouldn’t we (heaven forbid) think for ourselves and quite possibly arrive at our own conclusion on what is right, acceptable and decent.

If Hollywood has taught us one thing, it’s that you can’t trust it on moral issues. Those who want to rid our roads of drunk drivers don’t tow the line. They spell it out loud and clear: if you drink, don’t drive.

How about, if you’re not married, don’t have sex.

Radical. You bet. Prehistoric. Probably. But the best prevention against sexually transmitted disease and teenage pregnancy? You bet.

© 2007. Elmira_Independent. All rights reserved.