CHICAGO - At least one in four teenage American girls has a sexually transmitted disease, suggests a first-of-its-kind federal study that startled some adolescent-health experts.
Some doctors said the numbers might be a reflection of both abstinence-only sex education and teens' own sense of invulnerabilty. Because some sexually transmitted infections can cause infertility and cancer, U.S. health officials called for better screening, vaccination and prevention.
Only about half of the girls in the study acknowledged having sex. Some teens define sex as only intercourse, yet other types of intimate behavior including oral sex can spread some diseases.
Among those who admitted having sex, the rate was even more disturbing — 40 percent had an STD.
"This is pretty shocking," said Dr. Elizabeth Alderman, an adolescent medicine specialist at Montefiore Medical Center's Children's Hospital in New York.
"To talk about abstinence is not a bad thing," but teen girls — and boys too — need to be informed about how to protect themselves if they do have sex, Alderman said.
The overall STD rate among the 838 girls in the study was 26 percent, which translates to more than 3 million girls nationwide, researchers with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found. They released the results Tuesday at an STD prevention conference in Chicago.
"Those numbers are certainly alarming," said sex education expert Nora Gelperin, who works with a teen-written Web site called sexetc.org. She said they reflect "the sad state of sex education in our country."
"Sexuality is still a very taboo subject in our society," she said. "Teens tell us that they can't make decisions in the dark and that adults aren't properly preparing them to make responsible decisions."
Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the study shows that "the national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure, and teenage girls are paying the real price."
Similar claims were made last year when the government announced the teen birth rate rose between 2005 and 2006, the first increase in 15 years.
The new study by CDC researcher Dr. Sara Forhan relied on slightly older data. It is an analysis of nationally representative records on girls ages 14 to 19 who participated in a 2003-04 government health survey.
The teens were tested for four infections: human papillomavirus, or HPV, which can cause cervical cancer and affected 18 percent of girls studied; chlamydia, which affected 4 percent; trichomoniasis, 2.5 percent; and genital herpes, 2 percent.
Dr. John Douglas, director of the CDC's division of STD prevention, said the results are the first to examine the combined national prevalence of common sexually transmitted diseases among adolescent girls. He said the data, now a few years old, likely reflect current prevalence rates.
Disease rates were significantly higher among black girls — nearly half had at least one STD, versus 20 percent among both whites and Mexican-Americans.
HPV, the cancer-causing virus, can also cause genital warts but often has no symptoms. A vaccine targeting several HPV strains recently became available, but Douglas said it probably hasn't yet had much impact on HPV prevalence rates in teen girls.
The CDC recommends the three-dose HPV vaccine for girls ages 11-12 and catch-up shots for ages 13-26.
Chlamydia, which often has no symptoms but can lead to infertility, can be treated with antibiotics. The CDC recommends annual chlamydia screening for all sexually active women under age 25. Trichomoniasis, also treatable with antibiotics, can cause abnormal discharge and painful urination. Genital herpes can cause blisters but often has no symptoms. It's not curable but medicine can help.
The CDC's Dr. Kevin Fenton said given the dangers of some STDs, "screening, vaccination and other prevention strategies for sexually active women are among our highest public health priorities."
Douglas said screening tests are underused in part because many teens don't think they're at risk, but also, some doctors mistakenly think: "Sexually transmitted diseases don't happen to the kinds of patients I see."
Teens need to hear the dual message that STDs can be prevented by abstinence and condoms, said Dr. Ellen Kruger, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans.
"You've got to hammer at them," with appropriate information at each stage of teen development to make sure it sinks in, she said.
She said there are a lot of myths out there, too — many sexually active teens think the withdrawal method will protect them, or that douching with Coca-Cola will kill STD germs.
Dr. Margaret Blythe, an adolescent medicine specialist at Indiana University School of Medicine, said some doctors hesitate to discuss STDs with teen patients or offer screening because of confidentiality concerns, knowing parents would have to be told of the results.
Blythe, who heads an American Academy of Pediatrics committee on adolescence, noted that the academy supports confidential teen screening.
Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Comments
Just say no has never work for some teens and adults, never worked in America's Colonial period and it's not about to now While not perfect,"safer" sex seems to work better than just say no. Interesting how comparing human sexual activity to that of other animals seems to be OK for some if it works in their favor In the end it's silly to do so of so many ifs, ands, buts
max "What do you believe about life after death?"
At some point in the future- might be an hour from now, maybe tomrrow, maybe next year that something will cause my heart to stop pumping blood to my brain. My brain cells will be starved for oxygen and they will die which means I will probably be NO MORE.
scitsonga,
I agree humans have superior intellect . I don't know of any evidence for the soul however, I have my doubts something like that exists.
What do you believe about life after death?
"I'm not too sure humans really have that much control."
I would have to disagree with you on this as I know for myself and my wife neither one of us had sex before we were married not even with each other and its not because we did not have opportunity, its because we made a choice not to, realizing that there was and is something greater than a few moments of pleasure. We have been married now 14 years. I know many others who like us chose not to have sex before marriage and have been blessed beyond measure for that choice.
"Sexuality is so powerful and pleasurable, many do not poses the ability to resist. Much of the sex drive I believe is instinctive and can easily override rational thought that might otherwise protect us from more healthy choices in our sexual activities. Someone once said- "sex is the opera of the poor", there is truth in that."
I agree with you here, but I still believe we still make a choice and I personally believe that God gives me the strength to say no and to choose a better way and can do the same for anyone.
"Well sure, but we all make decisions that turn out to be bad for us. The best protection we an provide for our children, and society as a whole, is to educate about the potential hazards of sexual activity, its then up to the individual. Its an up hill battle though for the aforementioned reasons."
Totally agree that we need to warn our children about the dangers, it would be total irresponsibility not to warn them. I have 5 kids and many outlets in our home, I am not going to just let my kids stick their fingers in the socket without warning them of the dangers of doing so. However with saying that I do not cover up the sockets either. I believe that by warning them and encouraging them over time not to stick their finger in the socket they will get the idea and not do it. "Knock on wood" they havn't yet done it. The same is true with sex i need to inform them all that I can and not stop there but encourage them to choose a better path for their life and not give them the impression that they are going to screw up but that they can do better and overtime I believe they will make the right choice. Though I know that it is possible that they will not and give into their natural desires.
maximus, thanks for taking the time for your post.
"While I agree that we are a part of the animal kingdom, wouldn't you say that humans are set apart from other animals in that we have a intellect, will and soul?"
I agree humans have superior intellect . I don't know of any evidence for the soul however, I have my doubts something like that exists.
"I do agree that the sex drive in humans is very strong (thank God) but if in deed we have the ability to choose rather than act on instinct alone, can we not choose the better path in life for our sexuality?"
I'm not too sure humans really have that much control. Sexuality is so powerful and pleasurable, many do not poses the ability to resist. Much of the sex drive I believe is instinctive and can easily override rational thought that might otherwise protect us from more healthy choices in our sexual activities. Someone once said- "sex is the opera of the poor", there is truth in that.
"Wouldn't you say if they chose to practice "no sex" as safe sex then they would not find themselves reaping the destruction of STD's in their lives? Instead if they would choose the better way "sex between one man and one woman" that they could enjoy a life "disease free."
Well sure, but we all make decisions that turn out to be bad for us. The best protection we an provide for our children, and society as a whole, is to educate about the potential hazards of sexual activity, its then up to the individual. Its an up hill battle though for the aforementioned reasons.
maximus1973,
thank you very much. I appreciate criticisms of my blog for content. My heart is not to be offencive for the sake of being so but to push the limits to wake the hearts of the lost into the reality of what the Gospel is. If you feel that mission has been lost I would love to hear you opinion on it.
in Christ,
Anthony
www.anthonymendoza.org
Amendoza sorry for the attack
maximus1973,
I am very sure about that. In todays post-modern, 'God is love', everything is open to discussion society Christians need to stand up and share the Gospel. Fact: we are all siners bound for hell. Fact: Jusus Christ died for your sins and all you have to do is repent (ask for forgivness and turn from sin) and trust in Christ.
We dont need more 'witnessing techniques', we need to get back to the Gospel. It worked when Jesus used it so why do we need to sugar-coat it with 'sharing your faith through (insert popular song/movie here)'. Are we conceded enough to think that we are smarter than the phrophets were so we get to change the Gospel?
I find it amuzing that instead of countering any of my points, you chose to attack my blog and not even my content, just the headline.
God bless,
Anthony
www.anthonymendoza.org
scitsonga,
While I agree that we are a part of the animal kingdom, wouldn't you say that humans are set apart from other animals in that we have a intellect, will and soul? Another words do we not have the ability to choose, unlike animals who act on instinct alone?
I do agree that the sex drive in humans is very strong (thank God) but if in deed we have the ability to choose rather than act on instinct alone, can we not choose the better path in life for our sexuality?
I do agree with your statement "The world would be a much better place too, if human nature and behavior were different than what it is- less poverty and a better society if individual humans gave more directly to the good of society through volunteerism and donated more of their personal wealth to society, but that generally runs counter to the nature of most humans. Thats why communism doesn't work." But are not all of these a direct result of human choice? Please don't get me wrong I am not saying that people today who find themselves in poverty chose that, but somewhere down the line someone made a choice and because of that choice people today are reaping the consequences of that choice. The same is true with sexual choices. A girl may choose to have sex and contract a STD and someday have a baby and that baby contracts the same disease as it passes through the birth canal. It's not the babies choice but rather the consequences of the mothers choice. Most women contract STD's as a teenager and for most the symptoms do not show up till they are in their twenties. Wouldn't you say if they chose to practice "no sex" as safe sex then they would not find themselves reaping the destruction of STD's in their lives? Instead if they would choose the better way "sex between one man and one woman" that they could enjoy a life "disease free."
amendoza: "instead of coping with the problem, why dont we fix it. PREACH THE GOSPEL!!!!"
Give 'em the gospel, but at the same time inform them that any sexual activity carries with it risk and responsibility. To simply say, "the bible says don't do it," and leave it at that, is Wrong. Do not hold back information or protection.
maximus1973, "So you are equating us with animals? Just wondering?" Even if we threw out the Bible and just thought about facts. Just wondering your thoughts here."
Well yes, just the facts, humans are animals, we are not plants, we are not minerals, we are not fish. The human animal has most of the chracteristics of other members of the animal kingdom that allow for survival and propagation of the species.
"Would STD's, AIDS or anything other effect of our "animal act" actually exist if from the beginning we "animals" would keep sex to a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman?"
There certainly would be less of the aforementioned diseases if humans practice monogamy, but as in most other animal species, many humans do not, by nature practice monogamy. The sex drive is exceedingly strong in the animal kingdom, including humans, which causes many to stray from monogamy. The world would probably be a better place if humans practiced monogamy to a higher degree, but thats not reality. The world would be a much better place too, if human nature and behavior were different than what it is- less poverty and a better society if individual humans gave more directly to the good of society through volunteerism and donated more of their personal wealth to society, but that generally runs counter to the nature of most humans. Thats why communism doesn't work.
scitsonga,
So you are equating us with animals? Just wondering? Even if we threw out the Bible and just thought about facts. Would STD's, AIDS or anything other effect of our "animal act" actually exist if from the beginning we "animals" would keep sex to a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman? Just wondering your thoughts here.
Shequon,
It might be because we talk to people? Maybe that is the reason? I don't know, I guess you assume Christians live in boxes or something. For that matter you didn't make any response to what I wrote.
amendoza "I think that Abstinace only is a great thing "
Except that it runs counter to the natural tendency for all animals to engage in sexual intercourse, good luck with that one. You are fighting millions of years of evolution.
amendoza "what we are forgetting is that sex out side of marriage is a sin."
No, not really. as an agnostic I am not encumbered by such nonsense, its a natural part of the life cycle- allows propagation of all species.
Maybe they should throw this little ratio at Hillary Clinton? She will just go somewhere and kill a baby. That's right, vote for Hillary, higher taxes, less babies, more terrorism, but... at least we will deal with baseball! That's right... I am watchin' those Souther demmies in Congress... The Reps are saying "Listen... we have a big economical issue, gas prices are skyrocketting, the stock market is crashing, and Unions are pressing businesses into bankruptcy." The dems are saying "Let's talk baseball."