The History and Limitations of the ABC Model

hi. I'll add: At The Lancet session, the people filling the room- how big were those session rooms? hundreds, yes?- voted overwhelmingly in favor of abandoning the term "ABCs" and all derivative alphabetical shorthand for HIV prevention. In his conclusion, Dr. Piot said, "It is time to be frank with young people about sex." After calling out STI rates among teens in the good ol' USA and specifically, HIV infections rates doubling among young men ages 13 to 19 in the past 5 years in New York. Later he showed photos of TAC work in South Africa; held them up as a model of a well-organized and thoughtful treatment justice initiative broadening to include a prevention agenda.

While many people may have a problem with how the ABC model is presented, especially for youth, it is appropriate and sets appropriate limitations. My husband has a 15-year old daughter. She is a beautiful young lady. We are raising her in a Christian environment. As a parent, my husband is careful to set age-appropriate boundaries for her and expectations. If there are movies with explicit content, he will watch them with her and talk her through some of the values and beliefs within. However, if someone were come into her school and freely hand out condoms, that would not be acceptable. As a parent it is his role. I am an HIV/AIDS Educator. I do believe in abstinence as the best choice. However, within general audiences, condoms are a part of the discussion. Many people, if certain guidelines for the discussion are not adhered to, would completely turn off any discussion about HIV/AIDS and other Sexually Transmitted Infections. Furthermore, to fight for certain rights to freely hand out condoms and freely allow for certain sexual freedoms and encouragement there of would certainly give those whose faith those things violate the right to pass out Bibles or other religious literature, would it not? Some schools and places of work are just playing it safe: can't discuss or be open about one side of the coin, so can't be open and discuss the other side, either. With everything must come limits. HIV is a virus. A virus is not caused and cannot be stopped by public policy. There are only certain ways to get HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Prevention should be common sense. It's not like a cold, where germs that make people susceptable to a cold are everywhere. There are very limited ways that a person can get HIV. Public policy cannot take away from the fact that things such as multiple and anonymous partners; more than one partner in a life time; sexual unfaithfulness, etc. can make one more susceptable to various sexual infections, including HIV. It seems common sense that if a person wants to engage in activities that could put them at risk, simply making condoms more readily available won't solve the problem. Is not one just as capable of going to the pharmacy and purchasing condoms? Can't one read instructions as to how to use a condom? Just as with other illnesses, do we pass out needles to check blood sugar to those who gorge on sweets? Do we guarantee kleenex will be available in every room during cold and flu season? Do we pass out Zyrtec on the street during allergy season? Do we walk around giving cancer screenings to everyone we see smoking? It's no different with HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. With every decision comes responsibilities and consequences. Sex outside certain boundaries will make one more susceptable to certain illnesses. If one decides to engage in those activities, one should have the common sense to take the responsibility to purchase condoms and to do what they will to protect themselves. However, public policy in and of itself will not eliminate a virus that is not controlled by policy, but by the actions of those who put themselves or others at risk. Sadly, young children have been put at risk by the actions others. I hope these statements will be considered. Sincerely and God Bless and Protect us, Rachel