Peltzman effect

One of the questions thrown my way lately is related to the big RH bill debate--it came out of a discussion on why making condoms easily available (i.e., free) in health centers would not be good for society. The question is: "How about you? If somebody gave you a condom for free right now, you wouldn't go crazy-wild and use it, would you?"

Of course not. But, you see, this is exactly the kind of thinking that makes people complacent about allowing condoms or other pseudo-essential medicines to be readily available to anybody who walks in a health center: "It won't change me; so, how can it change society?" You'll be surprised.

WHO campaign for road safety, focused on
seat belt use. See the rest here.

The Peltzman Effect
Have you ever heard of the Peltzman Effect? Economist and University Professor Sam Peltzman, in his studies, noticed that regulations imposed by the government tend to fall short of their goal and even cause the opposite of the intended effect. How so? In a 2004 lecture that Peltzman gave at the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, the University of Chicago professor cites a seat belt car safety regulation as an example. To quote:

"I argued that this regulation would encourage greater risk-taking.... If you are in a hurry and tempted to drive faster or more aggressively part of the price you pay for this is the extra risk of getting into an accident and then suffering injury or even death. The mandated safety devices would reduce this price by reducing the severity of the consequences you could expect if you got into an accident. If those consequences had been sufficiently severe to deter you before the regulation came along they were now less likely to do so. So simple economic logic suggested that, in the aggregate, the mandated devices would encourage more risky behavior--and this great risk taking would offset to some degree the safety benefits these devices seem to promise." (Emphasis is mine.)

It's not that condoms are ineffective (I must emphasize though, that they are not 100 percent effective), but that their mandated availability will do much in promoting risky behavior. In the recent Real Love Revolution talk given by youth speaker Chris Stefanick, a simple comparison brought to light how the Peltzman Effect could apply to RH matters, too.

Chris Stefanick, at the Real Love Revolution 2012, held at the World Trade Center, Sept 1, 2012.  

Stefanick pointed out: "In 1984 was the AIDS breakout in the Philippines and in Thailand at the same time. The response in the Philippines was to promote abstinence; the response of Thailand was to promote condoms. Twenty years later, the rate of AIDS infection in Thailand was 50 times higher than in the Philippines."

Risky behavior
In other words, it's not about the effectiveness of a certain device (or the strength of personal wisdom of individuals) but about the pervading culture of society. If people learn to be more open to risky behavior simply because they have an escape route of sorts, what will we be in 20 years? in 50 years?

"Safe sex" is a lie. Wearing that rubber latex balloon, taking the Pill, or inserting that copper coil contraption do not make the sexual act safer--because really, sex (that is, sex within marriage and with fidelity) is safe to begin with. (Aside: having a baby is a natural effect of the conjugal act and is definitely not the same as getting sick.)

What makes sex unsafe is to have multiple partners, to engage in it outside of marriage and to contracept. With side effects like allergic reactions (condoms), headaches, mood swings, higher breast cancer risk (Pills), and a perforated uterus (IUD), how can it be said that contraceptives (and the latter two, abortifacients) actually make sex safe? If you disagree, it's a good time to look up the word "safe" in the dictionary.

Is it for us?
The condom culture is not something to make light of--it's real and it's happening now: in the US, Europe, Southeast Asia... all over the world. You hear people saying (in a derogative way) that the Philippines is the only country without an RH law--but I want to point out that passing an RH law just to avoid "being left behind" is just plain thoughtless. How about first considering how such laws have changed the family culture of other countries and then deciding whether or not we want that for our country? Consider real safety; and choose a culture that preserves the true meaning of family.

"Your own safety is at stake when your neighbor's wall is ablaze."-Horace

The Hunger Games

I read all three books of Suzanne Collins' The Hunger Games Trilogy in the span of a week because I couldn't put them down. (That's saying a lot for me because I'm a slow reader.) There's so much to discuss about the series, but I can't tackle them all here. Maybe I'll get around to it in my other blog.

So in the books you follow Katniss Everdeen, the sharp-shooting, braid-wearing girl-on-fire from District 12. She volunteers to replace her sister at the reaping, which is when people get picked for the annual Hunger Games, a fight-to-the-death fully-televised reality game show for all of Panem to see. If you've read Shirley Jackson's The Lottery, the reaping's something like that. If you've read William Golding's The Lord of the Flies, the HG's something like that, too--except that it's set in some dystopian world, and the kids are really forced to kill each other by some sadistic, fearful, power-hungry grown-ups. 

Stills from the Hunger Games movie (2012)
 

If you've read the Twilight series, then--no matter how different Katniss and Bella Swan are--you know that the two female leads have at least one thing in common: they both are comfortable with the idea of sharing a bed with a guy (just literally sharing), and both talk about it like it's an ordinary occurrence anywhere. If anything, this comes across to me as more media mileage for The Twilight Myth.

To her credit, Collins doesn't make her characters say one thing and do another. The lying together in bed is explained as a way for Katniss and fellow tribute Peeta Mellark to cope with the nightmares that come with being in the Hunger Games. I mean, how can you not be disturbed when you've been forced to kill all the other kids just so you could survive, right?

Right.

So what's the lesson here? 
Perhaps there's nothing surprising about Katniss and Peeta finding comfort in each other's arms during the night. Actually, there's a scientific explanation for it.

Ever heard of oxytocin? Oxytocin is a hormone that your body releases when you're particularly close to someone. Moms and babies have it when they're breastfeeding--it propagates a sense of trust between the two.

The same thing happens when it comes to other people: a Katniss and a Peeta can say they sleep together to forget their nightmares. They can justify all they want about nothing happening and it being harmless and all, but it doesn't change the fact that by sharing a night together, they've taught their bodies to trust--who knows--someone they weren't supposed to in the first place.

This means...
When it comes to finding true love, a little distance is necessary. But the real reason is more than not wanting to muddle your own judgement. If you really love someone, you do not want him to muddle his judgement.

Respect, selfless love, and caring for the other's welfare... all these things come into play in real-life relationships. And contrary to what popular authors would have us believe, the best way to give them is to take a step back.


"So near is falsehood to truth that a wise man would do well not to trust himself on the narrow edge."-Marcus Tullius Cicero

That blasted pill

'RX.' Photography series by Jonathon Kambouris. Artwork has no relation to topic at hand, but they look pretty cool! More images here.

I was having dinner with some of my cousins a few months back, and we were talking about exercise. One of them, a fitness enthusiast, got asked (as a joke), "Do you use 'roids or something?" ("'Roids" as in steroids.) He snapped, "'Roids will give me cancer. Anything that gives me cancer is not for me!"

"Now, how on earth is this connected to chastity, modesty and purity?" you ask. In a culture where these virtues are valued little, one carcinogen seems to be taken too lightly that some women pop them every morning like vitamins. Nowadays, oral contraceptives (OCs) are easily available over-the-counter when women want to "exercise their freedom of choice." It seems that many people just don't think about how these OCs increase a woman's chances of getting breast cancer.

According Dr. Virginia G. Guzman-Manzo, "Hormones are known to play a role in many cases of breast cancer. Oral and injectable contraceptives are actually made up of hormones just like those found normally in a woman, which are responsible in carrying out her reproductive functions. Many of the risk factors of developing breast cancer are related to a woman’s natural hormones. Therefore there has been considerable concern about the possible effects of OCs on breast cancer risk, especially if women take them for many years."

Another doctor, Dr. Peachie Pie Alvia, puts it more bluntly: "Alam mo, when men take those pills, they grow breasts. Paano pa kaya kung women?" (You know, when men take those pills, they grow breasts. How much more will it affect women?)

If you check out Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a website for breast cancer awareness, you'll find a risk factor table that puts "Birth control pills" under a "weak increase in risk" for breast cancer. The risk factors that pose a greater risk are things that cannot be helped: a woman's age, her childbearing history, her family history, specific characteristics of her body (such as the density of the breast) etc. This means that while much of what causes breast cancer is something you cannot do anything about, there are things you can do to lessen your risk, and not taking OCs is one of them.

Healthy ladies don't need to pollute their system with excessive hormones! And married or not, women (and men) would do well to respect the natural functions of the body, and to remember that love thinks of the other person more than the self.


"Poisons and medicine are oftentimes the same substance given with different intents."-Peter Latham