Friday, January 12. 2007A molecular condom against AIDSTrackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
What are the failure rates? It's difficult to ascribe a 'loving' aspect to the act when the chance of killing your partner is anything short of astronomical.
This is, BTW, one of the main obstacles for using condoms as a (double effect) method of AIDS prevention between spouses. God Bless, RyanL
My (completely nonprofessional) take on this is that in one regard it could be a good. In Africa, I'm told, (and doubtless in other places as well) one of the problems with the spread of HIV is male promiscuity. In South Africa, men often leave their wives and families back in the tribal lands while they go into the city to work. While there, some of them behave badly and acquire the virus. They then infect their wives and potentially any subsequent children.
As RyanL pointed out above, it's not very loving to expose your spouse to risk, so on an individual level the moral aspect is iffy. On the other hand, we're not necessarily talking about the most enlightened of environments regarding female equality. If wives aren't in a great position to refuse sex with infected husbands, it seems to me this could be regarded as a means of self-defense. But I can't speculate how the Church would deal with this. I was interested to learn (via an in-law's in-law who was in the Peace Corps in Africa) that male circumcision was associated with reduced rates of transmission and that the practice was now being encouraged as public health measure.
RyanL and Cminor,
Thanks for you input, I really appreciate it. Great points both of you. Definitely effectiveness is an issue. What I wanted to convey with this entry was that Catholics like myself often have knee-jerk gut reactions to things in the biotech area that could possibly be ethical if we stop and think about it. It remains to be seen if a molecular condom will be effective or moral. I am interested to see what the Church will say on this technology if it makes it to human trials.
I think I'm with you on this. It's probably silly to call it a condom, if you are correct about how it would work -- it's not preventing motility (or whatever) or attacking sperm, but HIV. Once you re-orient yourself after dropping the condom idea, it's difficult to see why it would be problematic.
My concern would be that it might be bad for the cervix in some way, contributing to pregnancy loss, or that it might damage sperm and contribute to problems with baby . . . but that's just looking for problems with it, as we know nothing about any of that yet (I'm guessing). Well, on second thought, if it did act contraceptively, at best - if you are right - it would work as a perforated condom would, permitting some transmission of semen, but not all. I think the Vatican came down against even perf condom use (except for collecting specimens) . . . so I don't know. Probably the gel would disrupt the unitive aspect in some way, someone might think. It's definitely right on the fringe . . . interesting to see which way it will go. |
Follow or Contact me![]() marymeetsdolly [dot] com QuicksearchRecent Entries
ArchivesBlogs of Interest
Warning many of the following blogs are not Catholic or pro-life! My ears are burning..."great title, very informative site/blog" -- Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex "Cool blog! ...I like your honest and smart style..." -- Glenn McGee" "A must for every pro-lifer's bookmarks." -- Fr. Tim Finigan "really worth talking about" -- GOP Soccer Mom "She knows her stuff..." -- Spinal Confusion "a valuable resource" -- Amy Welborn "a must read for any Catholic or Medical Ethicist" -- Tomfoolery of a Seminarian "She's charitable AND loyal to the team. What a gal!" -- Amateur Catholics "For the love of little green apples!" -- Sailorette Categories |