Echo Issue Outline: copyright Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
Should condom-vending machines be installed in schools?
A study on adolescent sexuality conducted by the Centre for Adolescent Health at Melbourne's Royal Children's Hospital was released in November, 1995.
The study's findings prompted the director of the Centre, Professor Glenn Bowes, to call for the installation of condom-vending machines in all Australian secondary schools.
Professor Bowes' recommendation has met with support from some adolescent health authorities and with reservations from others.
Some church spokespeople have been critical of the proposal. Chief among these has been the Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne, Dr Keith Raynor.
Background
The study or survey conducted by the Centre for Adolescent Health involved 2524 Victorian secondary school students.
The students were drawn from years 7, 9 and 11. Thirty-seven Government schools, thirteen Catholic schools and nine independent schools were involved.
It found that almost 40 per cent of those surveyed had had sex by the time they were 16.
Broken down according to year levels, it was found that 8 per cent of boys and 2 per cent of girls in year seven had started having sex; that 16.4 per cent of boys and 7.6 per cent of girls had started having sex by the time they were in year nine and that by the time they were in year eleven 38 per cent of boys and 36 per cent of girls had had sex.
The study also found that 54.2 per cent of year eleven boys carried condoms compared with 21 per cent of year eleven girls.
Among sexually active year eleven boys, 60 per cent said they always used condoms compared to 70 per cent of sexually year eleven girls.
Arguments in favour of condom-vending machines in secondary schools
The principal argument offered in support of installing condom-vending machines in secondary schools is that many teenagers are sexually active and therefore need protection against both sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy.
A new study, conducted by the Centre for Adolescent Health, claims to have found that almost 40 per cent of young people have had sexual intercourse by the time they are 16.
Those who believe that condom-vending machines should be available in schools argue that this degree of sexual activity among adolescents indicates that they require readily available prophylactics.
According to this line of argument, unless condoms are very readily accessible, teenage sex is highly likely to result in disease transmission or unwanted pregnancy.
It has been argued that adolescents participate in unplanned intercourse to a greater degree than do adults, thus increasing the likelihood that they will not be wearing a prophylactic.
Further to this it has been noted that young people infected with a sexually transmitted disease are in greater danger than an adult similarly infected because they are less likely to recognise symptoms.
Teenagers contracting a sexually transmitted disease are therefore thought to face a greater likelihood of suffering lifetime consequences such as chronic infection, ectopic pregnancy and infertility.
With regard to the transmission of AIDS, recent figures from the United States have been cited to suggest that the number of teenagers contracting the virus that causes AIDS is doubling every 14 months in that country.
Further, as to the likelihood that teenagers might make their own independent arrangements to ensure they are protected, it has been claimed that the relative lack of sexual confidence of adolescents makes it particularly difficult for them to purchase condoms from a standard outlet.
Professor Glenn Bowes, director of the Centre for Adolescent Health, has claimed, `Many young people still coming to terms with their sexual identity find it acutely embarrassing to go into a supermarket or chemist to buy condoms.'
A survey conducted by the Centre for Adolescent Health also noted that while some 50 per cent of adolescent boys in year 11 carried condoms in preparation for safe sex, only 20 per cent of girls did so.
As evidence of the relative failure of current provisions to ensure adolescents have access to contraceptive protection, Professor Bowes has claimed that there were more than 79,000 terminations of pregnancy carried out in 1990, of which more than a third were performed on teenagers.
This statistic is claimed to suggest that there is a significant amount of unprotected adolescent sexual intercourse occurring within our community and further that the results of this sexual activity are undesirable.
Thus, it is claimed, one sensible response to relatively high levels of teenage sexual activity coupled with adolescent embarrassment about purchasing condoms through conventional outlets is to make condoms available easily and discreetly through schools.
Professor Bowes has claimed that a committee of the American Academy of Paediatrics, representing 49,000 doctors, recently called for the mandatory installation of condom-vending machines in American schools. (This was apparently in response to the increase in HIV-positive test results among teenagers in the United States.)
On the question of whether teenagers would view condom-vending machines in schools as an encouragement or inducement to become sexually active, some health experts have maintained that this is unlikely.
Dr Michael Carr-Gerr, head of the education and training unit at the Centre for Adolescent Health, Melbourne Royal Children's Hospital, has maintained that to claim that condom-vending machines cause sexual experimentation among adolescents `is both illogical and slightly disrespectful of young people.'
Professor Bowes has stressed the reasons young people give for not becoming sexually active. These include, `not being ready' and `not having met the right person'.
Professor Bowes implies that such considered decisions not to have intercourse will not be altered by easier access to condoms.
A similar point has been made by Dr Michael Carr-Gerr, `More than two-thirds of young people in secondary schools have chosen not to have sex ... there is no reason to believe that having condoms in schools will send a message to young people that they must have sex.'
Further, it has been argued, supplying condoms in schools does not mean that the school and the society regard themselves as having met all their obligations to assist young people in the management of their sexuality.
Professor Bowes has argued, `Condom availability in schools should be developed in collaboration with the community and accompanied by a national, compulsory sex-education program.'
Professor Bowes has further urged that there is a need `to broaden the message of HIV/AIDS [to include] all STDs(sexually transmitted diseases); to teach young people about the practicalities of safe sex; to strive for a more intersectoral approach with health, education and welfare agencies combining to provide a consistent message about sexual health.'
Thus, according to Professor Bowes and others, it is not a question of the installation of condom-vending machines in schools removing the need for sex education, rather condom-vending machines should form part of an overall strategy that includes `compulsory sex-education.'
Arguments against condom-vending machines in schools
One of the central arguments offered against installing condom-vending machines in schools is that condoms are readily available in the general community without having to be made available in schools.
According to this line of argument condoms are available from doctors, chemists, supermarkets and some school counsellors. To demonstrate this availability, survey findings that more than 50 percent of adolescent boys in year 11 carry a condom in preparation for sexual activity have been cited.
Opponents of condom machines in schools claim that the further survey finding that significantly more adolescents carried condoms than used them suggests that the core of the problem is not condom availability but sex education.
According to this line of argument the reason many adolescents have unprotected intercourse is not that they are unable to acquire condoms, rather, it is argued, they are either uncomfortable about using them, do not know how to use them or do not properly recognise the need to do so.
The Age, in its editorial of November 7, 1995, summed up this position as `Education is still more important than access'.
A number of adolescent health educators have argued that installing condom-vending machines in schools could be dangerous if it lead to the belief that all that was necessary had been done for sexually active adolescents.
Ms Vikki Sinnott, manager of education, disability and youth services for Family Planning Victoria, has claimed that installing condom-vending machines would be of little value unless they were accompanied by a comprehensive sex education program.
Ms Sinnott has stated that condom-vending machines cannot be seen as a panacea for the problems of teenage pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease.
There are also those who are much more strongly opposed to condom-vending machines than are those who believe that they are being regarded as a simplistic solution to the problems facing sexually active teenagers.
There are those who believe that condom-vending machines should probably not be installed in schools at all. Those opposed to the installation of condom-vending machines are concerned about the message this would send those students who are not sexually active.
According to this line of argument, if some 40 per cent of teenagers have had sexual intercourse by the time they are 16, then some 60 per cent have not.
Critics of condom-vending machines being installed in schools argue that such a move would be seen by many teenagers as giving school and thus societal sanction to sexual intercourse among adolescents.
This view has been summed up by The Age in its editorial of November 7, 1995, `Children, already under pressure to identify with high-profile peers, may interpret [the installation of condom-vending machines in schools] as institutional approval for sex before they have developed the intellectual and emotional maturity to match their physiques.'
Those who have this concern believe that teenagers should not be encouraged to indulge in premature sexual activity.
This is the position put by Melbourne's Anglican Archbishop, Dr Keith Raynor.
The Archbishop is critical of what he refers to as our society's "condom mentality".
`From an early age our children are bombarded with the idea that permissive sex is the norm, and the "condom mentality" the only solution. It isn't healthy for children as young as those on year 7 to have sex ...' the Archbishop argues.
Archbishop Raynor maintains that sex ought to be a profound expression of love and bonding between two people. As such, Archbishop Raynor implies, it is an activity that it is inappropriate for adolescents to indulge in, as most of their sexual relationships will necessarily be casual.
Archbishop Raynor suggests that sexual relations are not purely a health issue and that there are profound questions of human relations and the human spirit to be considered.
Archbishop Raynor maintains that an emphasis on casual, recreational sex undermines marriage which sexuality traditionally reinforced.
`I suspect that one of the many factors in the high rate of marriage breakdown is the pervasive emphasis on sex for passing pleasure. Future generations will be astonished at our obsession with sex.'
According to this line of argument, the answer to the problems associated with adolescent sexuality is not effectively to encourage it, but to support parents and others in their bid to attempt to ensure teenagers do not become sexually active before they are emotionally and psychologically equipped to do so.
Installing condom-vending machines in schools, it has been claimed, would not provide parents with the support they need.
The Age, in its editorial of November 7, 1995, has argued, `There are social hazards to early sex, as well as personal, and many parents - not to mention their children - would resent what might be regarded as encouragement [should condom-vending machines be installed in schools].'
The most commonly expressed view among school spokespeople appears to be that schools are not appropriate places to install condom-vending machines.
A spokeswoman for the Directorate of School Education has claimed, `Students have access to condoms at a range of places. Schools should focus on education.'
Further implications
It seems unlikely that condom-vending machines will be introduced on a general basis into Victorian secondary schools.
The official position of the Directorate of School Education appears to be that schools are not appropriate places from which to acquire condoms.
A spokeswoman for the Directorate of School Education has noted that schools already provide sex-education classes, including safe-sex practices, condom use and person health.
However, concern has been expressed about the variable quality of sex-education programs provided in schools.
Professor Bowes has claimed, `Certain schools have fantastic teachers who, quite apart from the work they are paid to do, take on the role of improving the sexual health message, providing information on how to use doctors and how to get access to health centres.
`The problem is that it doesn't happen in all schools, and the DSE (Directorate of School Education) should consider encouraging schools, through funding, to develop partnerships with local community health centres.'
The Directorate of School Education's student welfare and support project officer, Mr Peter Roberts, has said that links between schools and community agencies were encouraged, but that it was up to individual schools whether these were established.
It also seems possible that some schools may act against the general Directorate position that condom-vending machines should not be installed in schools and develop their own position on the question.
A least one school principal was quoted in The Age as having said that his school's school council would have to consider whether to install condom-vending machines.
The principal was reported to think that if condom-vending machines were judged appropriate, this would only be for his school's senior campus.
Other principals have been cited endorsing the Directorate's view that supplying condoms was not part of schools' role. However, those who hold this view tend also to believe that it is appropriate for schools to provide information, including, perhaps, advice on where to get condoms.
The president of the NSW Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations, Ms Ros Brennan, has said that while the organisation supports the installation of condom-vending machines in schools, it was a matter for individual school communities to decide.
It would be interesting to know whether parent bodies in Victoria are also generally in support of the installation of condom-vending machines in schools.
Were it to come down to establishing policy on a school by school basis, after consultation with individual school communities, it is possible that most school principals and councils would consider the issue so divisive that they would avoid consideration of it.
The position of Victorian Catholic schools appears more clear cut.
The president of the Victorian Catholic Secondary Schools principals' association, Mrs Netty Broekman, has been reported to have said, `Installing condom-vending machines would be totally inappropriate in Catholic schools.'
Though their position has not been formally reported it appears likely that the view of the Catholic Secondary Schools principals' association would be shared by all Victorian denominational schools.
Sources
The Age
6/11/95 page 8 news item by Elissa Blake, `Teens need condoms in schools: professor'
7/11/95 page 11 editorial, `Sexual evolution'
11/11/95 page 25 analysis by Sally Heath, `Sex, teenage acts, and the judgement of adults'
12/11/95 page 7 analysis by Adrian Rollins, `Sex in schools: the case for protection'
8/12/95 page 15 editorial, `Condom culture'
8/12/95 page 15 comment by Professor Glenn Bowes, `Condoms and sex education, please'
10/12/95 page 22 editorial, `Sex, condoms and puberty blues'
12/12/95 page 15 comment by Reverend Dr Graham Cole, `A context for condoms'
The Australian
6/11/95 page 5 news item by Carolyn Jones, `Boys red-faced but ready'
The Herald Sun
8/12/95 page 13 comment by Dr Michael Carr-Gerr, `Young need safe sex'
What they said ...
`More than two-thirds of young people in secondary schools have chosen not to have sex ... there is no reason to believe that having condoms in schools will send a message to young people that they must have sex'
Dr Michael Carr-Gerr, head of the education and training unit, Centre for Adolescent Health, Royal Children's Hospital
`Children, already under pressure to identify with high-profile peers, may interpret [the installation of condom-vending machines in schools] as institutional approval for sex before they have developed the intellectual and emotional maturity to match their physiques'
The Age, editorial, November 7, 1995