THE Jacksonville Incident

Having just returned from the Medical Institute Conference, I heard from the "horse's mouth" exactly what happened at the National STD Conference in Jacksonville last month. For the uninformed, there was a panel scheduled at this government health conference to discuss how abstinence education was a threat to public health. The scope of the panel was changed when a few legislators objected to the topic terminology when it is medically accurate and acknowledged that abstinence is the only 100% effective method to prevent pregnancy, STDs and AIDS. The controversy was resolved by having a balanced panel discuss the pros and cons of abstinence education.

Dr. Patricia Sulak, OB/GYN and a contraceptive researcher, was asked to join the panel as an abstinence advocate. She is a convert to abstinence as an educational objective but believes sexually active teens must also know all the information necessary for their health decisions. I saw the power point presentation Dr. Sulak presented for which she was met with boos and heckling. The presentation encouraged the elimination of sex ed labels and to form an educational message/objective based on a set of medical facts. These medical facts are statements such as: "Adolescent sex and multiple partners are well documented health risk behaviors" and "Initiation of sexual activity is a critical health decision with possible long-term consequences if initiated during adolescence." Easch of those facts were backed up with research and statistics. Frustrated with the heckling, Dr. Sulak asked the audience if they could at least agree that, based on medical research, teens shouldn't have sex. That met with a resounding chorus of no-s.

Now, this was a medical conference attracting doctors, researchers, public health employees and STD specialists. Yet these professionals want to ignore the medical evidence to protect a social agenda that considers anyone has the right to have sex and make that decision without guidance or influence even if it is medically important. This is ignoring facts to advance an ideology. It was the first time Dr. Sulak had experienced this public expression that is contrary to the well-being of children. As she said, she usually speaks to friendly, or at least open-minded, audiences. But many assured her that we have been encountering this more often lately and it needs to be exposed. As I have stated in previous blogs, "position papers" in pediatric and adolescent health journals have advanced a social agenda without reference to medical considerations.