Sexual Education and Abstinence (1 Viewer)

[Lexicographer]

It's all Kinsey's fault.

 

[HotShot]

we all know...

that sex is fun and enjoyable.
so lets have fun!

abstininence is really personal thing. but protective sex is important, it doesnt mean you wont get diseases, but you won t get aids and stds.

you die of certain disease so in the end might as well enjoy life.

 

[Generator]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Health/R...pt-for-the-pill/2005/04/03/1112489349226.html

 

[townie]

In the Netherlands, they have a very in-depth sex-ed that starts at a very yong age (as young as kindy) they have one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in europe, annnd have sex later.

they are very open about sex, and it doesnt seem 2 cause them any problems

my point: start comprehensive (which should include abstinence as part of the curiculum) sex-ed, and early

 

[Lexicographer]

I believe that law will be struck down as inconstitutional. As health professionals, Pharmacists are like all others entitled and indeed obligated to adhere to their conscience when dispensing medications. This is why Doctors have the right not to prescribe things like contraceptives if they are opposed to their use, and why (until now) Pharmacists were also given the freedom not to dispense medications that they were morally against.

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

medical ethics 101..
ure own morality counts for nothing unless u feel it will cause harm.. then in good conscience u must refer them to a doctor that will.

but in his defence..actualli if he can balance it with appropriate research he isnt negligent.. doctors and other health workers hav the patients interest in mind as in physical, emotional and mental health is concerned unless its self-harming and they shouldnt try to make decisions on their own.. pharmacology isnt easy n lots of docs get it wrong too.. dun think with ure fancy internet a health care professional is obsolete..

but on the topic of sex..
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1338019.htm

 

[djmattyd]

That article brings up a good point, in that sex education classes fail to define what sexual relations actually are.

However, telling people to abstain from sex together will have a two way effect: 1) it will fail to educate people on how else to protect from unwanted pregnancy and health risks, and 2) it also causes the "rebellion" factor. You'd think America, with it's high rate of teenage pregnancies, would learn...

As for Australian sex education, I find it to be quite adequate, although like I said, the enforcement of the idea that any sexual relation may have consequences should be enforced.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I believe that law will be struck down as inconstitutional. As health professionals, Pharmacists are like all others entitled and indeed obligated to adhere to their conscience when dispensing medications. This is why Doctors have the right not to prescribe things like contraceptives if they are opposed to their use, and why (until now) Pharmacists were also given the freedom not to dispense medications that they were morally against.

For it to be unconstitutional, it must conflict with the Constitution, so if you care to point us in the direction of the relevant section? You could at least say "the vibe"

I don't think you would be a very good 'health professional' if you were presented with a person who was seeking contraceptives or sex advice and you refused them based on YOUR OWN morality. Considering that people who come to you may not share your views towards sex this does not mean you should neglect them and choose not to give them medical advice or material that is avaliable. You would have a duty to give that person medical advice.

If that person told you that they were going to have sex or you knew that they were about to have sex and you decided not to give them safe sex advice or devices because it went against YOUR 'morality' and 'conscience' you certainly would not be classed as a 'health professional' but as dogmatically dangerous and possibly negligent.

If Moonlight reads this I'm sure he can fill you in on the name of the case of the doctor giving negligent medical advice in relation to contraception. It's name escapes me right now.

I agree with this completely.

The case is Melchior v Cattanach, although it wasn't contraception... I think it was a failed medical procedure leading to pregnancy (it doesn't matter anyway, I think it stands for the same principle, with other cases). But I think the Civil Liability Act removed quite a bit of the damages recoverable

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

I certainly don't think the selling of condoms and the pill falls into the criteria you outline.

well i hold moderate views..

lots of others dont.. if the doctor in his professional experience gives u the pill and some part of ure history neglects to mention that u are incr risk of clots.. ure goin to sue the bitch..

see with the pill.. its givin a healthy person another drug to mess with their system.. u could easily argue that risks outweigh benefits... there isnt any protection from STI's especially if u find out they are heavy risk takers.

with the condom.. there are less arguements against .. its a physical barrier.. but allows contact STI's to happen.. leakage is very low with proper use.. but then it all comes back to sex-ed..
i prefer condoms to all other forms of protection.

for me its not cos sex out of marriage is wrong.. nothin immoral IMO.. but we are tryiing to control the HIV incr and syphillis and gonorrhea/clamydia problem of the community

note: i would prescribe them.. but i can reason with others based on scientific evidence

 

[DaddyK]

I don't get the whole saving your verginity, i mean sure if your really religious, but wtf, its just another thing that happens in life...sex....i don't get the big deal.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I know - it's not a wine or something