April 23rd 2008
Female condoms and foreign aid
Few people would disagree that there is a huge need for interventions that allow women to initiate protection against HIV infection. But while the research community is not having much luck in the development of a microbicide is another, already existing intervention-the female condom-being overlooked? Yes, according to the Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE). In a report just released, CHANGE argues that the female condom is an effective tool for HIV prevention that is getting little attention from international donors and governments, who are instead ploughing millions of dollars into microbicide and vaccine development. Ineffective programming and lack of political will continue to deny women access to female condoms, say the report authors. Are they right? Udani Samarasekera
Bookmark on delicious | Digg
April 25th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Female condom use promotion should not replace research pursuits. The vasts amounts of resources (time and money) spent in pursuit of new vaccines, microbicides, or other HIV prevention tactics are required to develop successful results. We are not likely to strike “research gold” on the first few tries, but only after years of collaborative effort. Female condoms are proven to be effective in preventing HIV transmission–for either partner. This proven method of prevention has been underutilized and lacks popularity. However, in many circumstances women are less likely to be able to make decisions about prevention methods (i.e. use of a prophylactic such as a condom), and therefore need help from political and social influences. Female condom use should be effectively promoted to increase effective HIV prevention and also to augment women’s decision-making capacity, especially in regions where women are liely to feel less empowered to make decisions about sex than their partners.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I was very pleased to see that the Lancet Global Health Network highlighted CHANGE’s report, Saving Lives Now: Female Condoms and the Role of U.S. Foreign Aid. I am concerned, however, by the mischaracterization of our organization’s position on funding for microbicide and vaccine development. We were very careful to make clear in our report that female condoms are not the magic bullet for HIV prevention nor will they be the preferred prevention method for everyone. For this reason, we believe continued investment in the development of microbicides and vaccines is essential to achieving the overall goal of providing a wide range of HIV prevention options that individuals, particularly women, can use to protect themselves. Current investments in the procurement, distribution and programming of female condoms are not near what they should be if female condoms are to play a role in HIV prevention efforts. However, our goal is not to pit support for female condoms against support for microbicide and vaccine development. Rather, we want to call attention to the fact that female condoms are an existing and effective prevention method that women can initiate, and to recommend policy and funding actions that the international community can take to make female condoms more widely accessible.
I hope this helps clarify CHANGE’s position, as it was never our intention to suggest that support for female condoms should come at the expense of investment in future HIV prevention technologies.