The right to sexual health care
The World Organization of Sexology (WAS) defines the right to sexual health care by stating that Sexual health care should be available for prevention and treatment of all sexual concerns, problems and disorders. Sexual health care is available to all people who are fortunate enough to live in an area that has a clinic or a family planning center relatively near by, and who can afford the services. Although the definition does not directly state that services should be available for all people, only that they should be accessible and all encompassing, matters very little. For what good are all encompassing programs if they are only situated in middle-to-upper income and/or largely populated areas? Many people who live in rural communities do not have access to health centers because they are few (if any) and far between. Even in largely populated yet poor inner city communities, many of what few treatment centers there are have shut down because of a lack of funds and adequately trained doctors and staff. The city of Baltimore is a perfect example.
In the early 1990s, a syphilis epidemic practically exploded out of what had typically been the confined socio-economic regions of east and west Baltimore. The poorer communities had begun to see a rapid decrease in the number of health care clinics and services. This was occurring in conjunction with the highly publicized blowing up and sort of hollowing out of neighborhoods and ghettos that had been plagued by violence and drugs. The residents were unable to get treatment, and instead of walking around for a few days or a week with their infection, they were walking around for two and three weeks, and even months before finding adequate care. During this time, they were still having sex and, even more importantly, moving into new neighborhoods and finding new partners outside the geographic lines that had previously existed and within which their sexual behavior occurred. Syphilis spread like wildfire throughout Baltimore during this time. And although in reality, there was a combination of contributing factors, a lack of available sexual health care was arguably the most influential.
The right to make free and responsible reproductive choices
(Individual-social institution conflict)
WAS characterizes this right by asserting that it encompasses the right to decide whether or not to have children, the number and spacing of children, and the right to full access to fertility regulation. This is most obviously in conflict with religious principles which are traditionally and strictly against any form of birth control or abortion methods, most notably Catholicism. Here, the individuals alleged right to choose whether or not to have a child or to use contraception clashes with the deeply held beliefs of the social institution of the church. Looking further into the clause, one will find other possible areas of discord that could occur between the person and the social establishment, specifically along the same lines of the religious societies. Some faiths require, or at least strongly persuade their followers to have as many children as possible. This is secondary in Catholicism because as a result of the absolute intolerance for contraception usage, catholic families tend to be larger. However in the Mormon religion for example, families are consistently told to have large families to spread the faith. This puts the individual in direct conflict with the social institution.
I do not feel that there is any simple or practical solution at this time. Either the religious fundamentalists have to be persuaded to change their beliefs, or they must be eradicated to eliminate the conflict. I do not foresee either option happening anytime in the near future, or at least not on a large enough scale. Orthodox and traditional followers of religion are by definition extremely resistant to change, and if it happens at all, it is very slow and on inconsequential issues.
The right to comprehensive sexuality education
(Individual and social institution conflict)
Comprehensive sexuality education according to WAS is a lifelong process from birth throughout the lifecycle and should involve all social institutions. Again, this is clearly at odds with most educational and religious institutions. Although in eighth and tenth grade health classes, kids in the United States learn about how to put on a condom, it is abstinence only that is advocated. Personally, I do not remember receiving any formal sexual education until eighth grade, hardly a lifelong process. Nor was what I was told in any way all-inclusive information. In addition, I attended public schools and I have been told by friends who attended private Catholic schools that abstinence is all that is taught. Neither is in any way comprehensive sexuality education. Perhaps church and state are growing too close, and the answer lies in reminding the religious right of the foremost principle on which this countrys legal system was based and founded upon: that church and state must forever remain separated.
The World Organization of Sexology (WAS) defines the right to sexual health care by stating that Sexual health care should be available for prevention and treatment of all sexual concerns, problems and disorders. Sexual health care is available to all people who are fortunate enough to live in an area that has a clinic or a family planning center relatively near by, and who can afford the services. Although the definition does not directly state that services should be available for all people, only that they should be accessible and all encompassing, matters very little. For what good are all encompassing programs if they are only situated in middle-to-upper income and/or largely populated areas? Many people who live in rural communities do not have access to health centers because they are few (if any) and far between. Even in largely populated yet poor inner city communities, many of what few treatment centers there are have shut down because of a lack of funds and adequately trained doctors and staff. The city of Baltimore is a perfect example.
In the early 1990s, a syphilis epidemic practically exploded out of what had typically been the confined socio-economic regions of east and west Baltimore. The poorer communities had begun to see a rapid decrease in the number of health care clinics and services. This was occurring in conjunction with the highly publicized blowing up and sort of hollowing out of neighborhoods and ghettos that had been plagued by violence and drugs. The residents were unable to get treatment, and instead of walking around for a few days or a week with their infection, they were walking around for two and three weeks, and even months before finding adequate care. During this time, they were still having sex and, even more importantly, moving into new neighborhoods and finding new partners outside the geographic lines that had previously existed and within which their sexual behavior occurred. Syphilis spread like wildfire throughout Baltimore during this time. And although in reality, there was a combination of contributing factors, a lack of available sexual health care was arguably the most influential.
The right to make free and responsible reproductive choices
(Individual-social institution conflict)
WAS characterizes this right by asserting that it encompasses the right to decide whether or not to have children, the number and spacing of children, and the right to full access to fertility regulation. This is most obviously in conflict with religious principles which are traditionally and strictly against any form of birth control or abortion methods, most notably Catholicism. Here, the individuals alleged right to choose whether or not to have a child or to use contraception clashes with the deeply held beliefs of the social institution of the church. Looking further into the clause, one will find other possible areas of discord that could occur between the person and the social establishment, specifically along the same lines of the religious societies. Some faiths require, or at least strongly persuade their followers to have as many children as possible. This is secondary in Catholicism because as a result of the absolute intolerance for contraception usage, catholic families tend to be larger. However in the Mormon religion for example, families are consistently told to have large families to spread the faith. This puts the individual in direct conflict with the social institution.
I do not feel that there is any simple or practical solution at this time. Either the religious fundamentalists have to be persuaded to change their beliefs, or they must be eradicated to eliminate the conflict. I do not foresee either option happening anytime in the near future, or at least not on a large enough scale. Orthodox and traditional followers of religion are by definition extremely resistant to change, and if it happens at all, it is very slow and on inconsequential issues.
The right to comprehensive sexuality education
(Individual and social institution conflict)
Comprehensive sexuality education according to WAS is a lifelong process from birth throughout the lifecycle and should involve all social institutions. Again, this is clearly at odds with most educational and religious institutions. Although in eighth and tenth grade health classes, kids in the United States learn about how to put on a condom, it is abstinence only that is advocated. Personally, I do not remember receiving any formal sexual education until eighth grade, hardly a lifelong process. Nor was what I was told in any way all-inclusive information. In addition, I attended public schools and I have been told by friends who attended private Catholic schools that abstinence is all that is taught. Neither is in any way comprehensive sexuality education. Perhaps church and state are growing too close, and the answer lies in reminding the religious right of the foremost principle on which this countrys legal system was based and founded upon: that church and state must forever remain separated.