Is It Okay To Shorten Someone's Life?

[Solitaire]

Last night I watched Sixty Minutes and they had on a preacher receiving
faith based funding from the goverment using dishonesty to keep kids from
wearing condoms. He'd say that condoms aren't totally effective against
disease. True, a few viruses do get through, but over all condoms reduce
exposure to quite a few other deadly diseases. Is it possible, assuming
they wise up, for those who got diseases to sue the fellow?

[Bjorn]

Although I didn't see the story I would guess he advocated abstinence, not unprotected sex. Sue him for what? :)

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Although I didn't see the story I would guess he advocated abstinence, not unprotected sex. Sue him for what? :)
I found the trascript of the program. Taking The Pledge (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/20/60minutes/main696975.shtml)
Here's the main part that I'm asking about.

Pattyn doesn’t just preach the virtues of sexual abstinence. His show is full of negative messages about condoms – messages warning that condoms won’t protect kids from pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

"We spoke with some of the kids after the show in Fort Meyers and they said that going into the program they thought that condoms did work, but your show convinced them that they didn’t," says Bradley to Pattyn.

"Right. Well, that’s good because we believe that condoms aren’t the answer," says Pattyn.

"You’re telling kids not to have sex. But some kids are going to have sex," says Bradley. "What do you tell those kids. You tell them not to wear a condom?"

"What I would say is if you chose to use a condom, don’t think you’re getting the protection you think you’re getting," says Pattyn.

"A kid’s part of your program, and he comes to you and says, 'You know, I’m going to have sex. I’ve reached a point and I’m going to do this. Should I use a condom?' What do you say?" asks Bradley.

"My own daughter, my 16-year-old daughter, tells me she’s going to be sexually active. I would not tell her to use a condom," says Pattyn. "I don't think it'll protect her. It won’t protect her heart. It won’t protect her emotional life. And it’s not going to protect her. I don’t want her to get out there and think that she’s going to be protected using a condom."

But wouldn't his daughter be more protected with a condom than without? "Not long term," says Pattyn.

It's like saying brushing your teeth doesn't prevent cavities.
If you convince someone against brushing their teeth, can
they sue you if they loose their teeth when they learn that
you're not being honest with them?

[Mycroft]

This is outrageous, but we see this all or nothing fanaticism in many aspects of politics.

[Ian Osborne]

I wonder if Durex would be interested in taking out a libel suit against him?

[TragicMonkey]

I just have to admire the principles of someone who would see his daughter and grandchild dead of AIDS rather than seem like he approves of sex.

Wait, admire isn't the word. Abhor. I just have to abhor the principles of someone who would see his daughter and grandchild dead of AIDS rather than seem like he approves of sex.

If I believed in hell, I'd want there to a be a special one for people like that. Monsters of piety...

[Brown]

People almost always simplify issues pertaining to personal safety. But the issues usually require a little more careful analysis than the talking heads are willing to supply. They would much rather rest upon "simple answers." Simple answers for simple people.

It is true that abstinence is very effective at preventing the generation of babies and at preventing the spread of certain diseases. But that is not the end of the analysis. If it were, then a similar argument could be made about abstaining from every activity in which there is a risk. For example, if you want to avoid being injured in a car accident, simply avoid riding in a car altogether. Problem solved, right?

As part of our daily lives, we choose to take risks. And as part of our risk management, we employ various safety devices and procedures to reduce--but not completely avoid--the risks.

For a safety device to be 100 percent effective, it must: (1) help you 100 percent of the time; (2) hurt you zero percent of the time; and (3) not give you a false sense of security. One is hard pressed to find any safety device that is 100 percent effective. A seat belt in an automobile, for example, can actually hurt you in some circumstances, and if those circumstances arise, you would be better off not wearing the seat belt. But in the vast majority of circumstances, you are better off wearing your seat belt than not wearing it, and it is foolish to say, "Well, the seat belt isn't 100 percent effective, so no one should use them at all."

But that is basically what these guys are pledge jokers are saying about "raincoats": They won't always protect you, so you shouldn't use them at all.

And that's foolish.

[curi0us]

A closely related issue:

DEATHS from cervical cancer could jump fourfold to a million a year by 2050, mainly in developing countries. This could be prevented by soon-to-be-approved vaccines against the virus that causes most cases of cervical cancer - but there are signs that opposition to the vaccines might lead to many preventable deaths.

The trouble is that the human papilloma virus (HPV) is sexually transmitted. So to prevent infection, girls will have to be vaccinated before they become sexually active, which could be a problem in many countries.

In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV.

"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18624954.500

[Daylight]

Just a thought, isn’t Pattyn setting his daughter up for failure (STD or pregnancy) so he can then turn around and persecute her for her actions?

[RandFan]

These folks are getting federal funds. THAT is wrong. I come to Bush's defense often but this is just BS. It does not meet any standards for teaching sex education that I can tell and it is steeped in religion.

I could care less what religious nuts teach their congregants just don't bill me for the practice.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
I wonder if Durex would be interested in taking out a libel suit against him?

That's an interesting question. I wonder if they assume a suit would founder because they only ever claim something like 99% protection. So when someone says "They don't completely protect you", they're technically right, even though it's rather overstating the case.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by Daylight
Just a thought, isn’t Pattyn setting his daughter up for failure (STD or pregnancy) so he can then turn around and persecute her for her actions?

I thought that was the xian way. "Forbidden fruit...blah, blah, blah".

Seems like he's just being a good xian.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by richardm
That's an interesting question. I wonder if they assume a suit would founder because they only ever claim something like 99% protection. So when someone says "They don't completely protect you", they're technically right, even though it's rather overstating the case.

An implication can be actionable for libel. The text-book example of this (from memory - minor details might be incorrect) is the food distributor who sued a magazine for running a story about how they sold their reporter a couple of crates of out-of-date tins. The distributor argued the article implied they routinely sold food unfit for human consumption. With the best will in the world, procedures in place to prevent this would fail every now and then. They gave a full refund or credit to anyone who bought out-of-date food in this way, and as they were selling to retailers and not the public, such a slip was unlikely to go unnoticed. They won their case.

[ETA: This is, of course, a UK example. The law might differ in the States]

I think the reason Durex et al won't sue is because of the negative publicity associated with going up against God-botherers in court.

[dann]

Originally posted by Synchronicity
True, a few viruses do get through, but over all condoms reduce exposure to quite a few other deadly diseases. The problem with overall condoms is that they make it almost impossible to breathe.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Synchronicity
Last night I watched Sixty Minutes and they had on a preacher receiving
faith based funding from the goverment using dishonesty to keep kids from
wearing condoms. He'd say that condoms aren't totally effective against
disease. True, a few viruses do get through, but over all condoms reduce
exposure to quite a few other deadly diseases. Is it possible, assuming
they wise up, for those who got diseases to sue the fellow?

Other things that aren't totally effective at removing risk:

Seat belts
Regular aircraft maintenance and safety checks
Looking both ways before you cross the road.

Maybe he should widen his campaign.

[Charlie Monoxide]

The 60 Minutes was "fair and balanced" (please don't sue me Fox network). I thought that the man that did the massive study of sexual behavior of teenagers more telling. Of the group that pledged "abstinence", a group (IIRC about 20%-30%) engaged in unprotected anal/oral sex. They still considered themselves "virgins" and upholding of the pledge. This is scary behavior.

Charlie (let's blame Clinton) Monoxide

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Synchronicity
I found the trascript of the program. Taking The Pledge (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/20/60minutes/main696975.shtml)
Here's the main part that I'm asking about.

It's like saying brushing your teeth doesn't prevent cavities.
If you convince someone against brushing their teeth, can
they sue you if they loose their teeth when they learn that
you're not being honest with them?
I don't see any basis for lawsuits there, he doesn't really say anything that's clearly untrue, misleading sure, but nothing straight out false.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Kerberos
I don't see any basis for lawsuits there, he doesn't really say anything that's clearly untrue, misleading sure, but nothing straight out false.

As I said earlier, 'misleading' is enough unless US law is radically different to UK.