Condoms and Seatbelts
2001-09-22 02:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
archershipsFrom:
http://www.godgive.com/health/family07.html
Seat belts and condoms are two safety measures promoted to reduce risk
and save lives. But in Saturday's issue of The Lancet, three British
researchers pose an interesting question: Is it possible that some
people using these safety devices take new risks, such as driving
faster or having sex with more partners, to compensate for an
increased feeling of safety?
The investigators note that a new
analysis of statistical information in
Great Britain suggests that since the
advent of seat belt laws in many
countries over the past 20 years, car
drivers have adjusted to the sense of
increased safety they feel behind the
wheel by driving at higher speeds.
In addition, the researchers suggest
that such behavioral compensation
parallels the increased degree to which
men and women who choose to use condoms
may also choose to engage in sex with
more partners, or take part in risky
sexual behavior with regards to the
transmission of sexually transmitted
diseases (STDs).
"The benefits of condom use to
individuals exposed to HIV or STDs are
substantial... and can be compared with
the benefits of wearing a seat belt
during a high-speed collision," Dr. John
Richens and colleagues at the University
College London write in their report. At
the same time, they point out that in
terms of the bottom-line risk of
contracting an STD, "condom-promotion
policy could increase rather than
decrease sexual exposure, if it has the
unintended effect of encouraging greater
sexual activity."
Richens and his team examined statistics
and studies regarding the number and
nature of road accidents in more the
than 80 countries -- including Sweden,
England, Canada and the US -- that have
passed seat belt legislation since the
1970s. They found that seat belt laws
have not led to a decrease in road death
rates. In the UK, in fact, they found
that in the 23 months following the
passage of such laws, deaths rose 8%,
13% and 25%, respectively, among
pedestrians, cyclists and rear sear
passengers not wearing a seat belt.
The researchers suggest that the reason
could be found in the psychological
relationship between a lowering of
perceived risk and the willingness most
people have to operate in a manner that
entails a certain acceptable level of
risk. They note that this results in a
willingness to make up for the increased
security by taking new and different
risks, because when "a safety device is
introduced... the rewards of risk-taking
become more attractive."
Richens and colleagues suggest that this
type of risk compensation -- or risk
management -- would explain why seat
belt laws have not reduced the
predictable number of car accidents
involving unbelted passengers, cyclists
and pedestrians, as might be
assumed. They also note that the
promotion of condom use "is apparently
not having much effect in most
developing countries."
"We should ask whether we have the right
balance between messages about condom
promotion and partner reduction or
selection," they add.
In an interview with Reuters Health,
Marty Algaze -- the manager of
communications at Gay Men's Health
Crisis in New York -- took issue with
the report's suggestion that the
availability and promotion of condom use
might somehow translate into increased
risk-taking among those who are sexually
active. "We think that people who use
condoms are being responsible and not
taking risks," said Algaze. "And even
though in the US the number of new
infections of HIV have basically been
level at about 40,000 a year, we believe
that people who are being infected are
people who are not using condoms. People
who use condoms are not being reckless,
and we think it's much better for people
to use condoms when having sex than to
have unsafe sex without condoms."
Although he emphasized that the use and
promotion of condoms itself was not the
problem the study suggested it might be,
Algaze acknowledged that in the real
world, situations do arise in which
someone may decide not to use a
condom. "Anytime you have sex you might
leave yourself open to getting an STD,
and people might use condoms for some
sexual acts and not others. Or someone
might not use a condom for every partner
they're with because there's not a
condom available. Or they may throw
caution to the wind and so they leave
themselves open to hypothetically being
infected with HIV or other STDs. But we
think condom use itself makes it less
likely they will be infected with STDs."
Referring to the use of condoms in the
gay community, Algaze added that "sexual
surveys from 1998 of 7,000 men in gay
bars in the New York area show that the
majority of gay men are using condoms,
and we think it has kept the HIV
infection rate down. We think if they
were not using condoms, the number would
be much higher."
See also:
John Richens, John
Imrie and Andrew Copas, "Condoms and seat belts: the parallels and the lessons," The Lancet, Volume
355, Number 9201, 29 January 2000, 400-403
http://www.godgive.com/health/family07.html
Seat belts and condoms are two safety measures promoted to reduce risk
and save lives. But in Saturday's issue of The Lancet, three British
researchers pose an interesting question: Is it possible that some
people using these safety devices take new risks, such as driving
faster or having sex with more partners, to compensate for an
increased feeling of safety?
The investigators note that a new
analysis of statistical information in
Great Britain suggests that since the
advent of seat belt laws in many
countries over the past 20 years, car
drivers have adjusted to the sense of
increased safety they feel behind the
wheel by driving at higher speeds.
In addition, the researchers suggest
that such behavioral compensation
parallels the increased degree to which
men and women who choose to use condoms
may also choose to engage in sex with
more partners, or take part in risky
sexual behavior with regards to the
transmission of sexually transmitted
diseases (STDs).
"The benefits of condom use to
individuals exposed to HIV or STDs are
substantial... and can be compared with
the benefits of wearing a seat belt
during a high-speed collision," Dr. John
Richens and colleagues at the University
College London write in their report. At
the same time, they point out that in
terms of the bottom-line risk of
contracting an STD, "condom-promotion
policy could increase rather than
decrease sexual exposure, if it has the
unintended effect of encouraging greater
sexual activity."
Richens and his team examined statistics
and studies regarding the number and
nature of road accidents in more the
than 80 countries -- including Sweden,
England, Canada and the US -- that have
passed seat belt legislation since the
1970s. They found that seat belt laws
have not led to a decrease in road death
rates. In the UK, in fact, they found
that in the 23 months following the
passage of such laws, deaths rose 8%,
13% and 25%, respectively, among
pedestrians, cyclists and rear sear
passengers not wearing a seat belt.
The researchers suggest that the reason
could be found in the psychological
relationship between a lowering of
perceived risk and the willingness most
people have to operate in a manner that
entails a certain acceptable level of
risk. They note that this results in a
willingness to make up for the increased
security by taking new and different
risks, because when "a safety device is
introduced... the rewards of risk-taking
become more attractive."
Richens and colleagues suggest that this
type of risk compensation -- or risk
management -- would explain why seat
belt laws have not reduced the
predictable number of car accidents
involving unbelted passengers, cyclists
and pedestrians, as might be
assumed. They also note that the
promotion of condom use "is apparently
not having much effect in most
developing countries."
"We should ask whether we have the right
balance between messages about condom
promotion and partner reduction or
selection," they add.
In an interview with Reuters Health,
Marty Algaze -- the manager of
communications at Gay Men's Health
Crisis in New York -- took issue with
the report's suggestion that the
availability and promotion of condom use
might somehow translate into increased
risk-taking among those who are sexually
active. "We think that people who use
condoms are being responsible and not
taking risks," said Algaze. "And even
though in the US the number of new
infections of HIV have basically been
level at about 40,000 a year, we believe
that people who are being infected are
people who are not using condoms. People
who use condoms are not being reckless,
and we think it's much better for people
to use condoms when having sex than to
have unsafe sex without condoms."
Although he emphasized that the use and
promotion of condoms itself was not the
problem the study suggested it might be,
Algaze acknowledged that in the real
world, situations do arise in which
someone may decide not to use a
condom. "Anytime you have sex you might
leave yourself open to getting an STD,
and people might use condoms for some
sexual acts and not others. Or someone
might not use a condom for every partner
they're with because there's not a
condom available. Or they may throw
caution to the wind and so they leave
themselves open to hypothetically being
infected with HIV or other STDs. But we
think condom use itself makes it less
likely they will be infected with STDs."
Referring to the use of condoms in the
gay community, Algaze added that "sexual
surveys from 1998 of 7,000 men in gay
bars in the New York area show that the
majority of gay men are using condoms,
and we think it has kept the HIV
infection rate down. We think if they
were not using condoms, the number would
be much higher."
See also:
John Richens, John
Imrie and Andrew Copas, "Condoms and seat belts: the parallels and the lessons," The Lancet, Volume
355, Number 9201, 29 January 2000, 400-403
no subject
Date: 2001-09-22 02:00 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2001-09-22 02:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2001-09-22 05:56 pm (UTC)On the other hand, the number of injuries to pedestrians from autos went up a lot.
no subject
Date: 2001-09-24 06:00 pm (UTC)Danger(driving fast w/ seat belt)
+Danger(having promiscuous sex w/ condoms)
-------------------------------------------
Danger(driving fast with a safety belt on while having promiscuous, yet protected sex)
is not a valid calculation of one's danger, even though the precautions are not coupled (wearing a safety belt does nothing to reduce one's risk of STDs, and wearing a condom does nothing to reduce one's risk of vehicular injury).
I think someone should write a letter to the editor alerting them to this issue.
Re:
Date: 2001-09-24 08:04 pm (UTC)