I came across this article in the Star Tribune regarding voluntary HIV testing at a San Francisco high school. My letter to the editor will praise the initiative of the school in San Francisco, California and then express concern over the volunteer limit to the senior class. I will also suggest that the testing include other sexually transmitted diseases.
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/115974614.html
The Urban School of San Francisco, California, showed great initiative in educating teens about HIV through their voluntary HIV testing. This is a very serious issue affecting teens given that about 18% of every new HIV diagnosis in the United States is among individuals aged 13-24 years, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, it would be prudent to implement voluntary testing for other STDs and not just HIV. Teens need to be accurately informed of all STDs and the procedures involved in getting tested for each. I worry that in the world of the fickle teenager, this volunteer testing of HIV could overshadow other serious STDs such as HPV which can cause various cancers including cervical, vulvar, anal and penile. Also, the article stated that only members of the senior class were tested. Why wasn’t the testing available to all students in the high school? It is unrealistic to believe that the only sexually active students are members of the senior class.
Nice: the whole 'knowledge is dangerous' theme, and the public fear of sexuality in general. This goes to what Elliot talks about in regard to public responsibility to provide information (and conversely: to censor). There's the public-health issue (testing and its effects), and there's the public RHETORIC issue: what's the effect of telling people about things, publicizing, 'making nes' out of issues?
ReplyDeleteI like that you point out the naive assumption that only seniors are sexually active. perhaps you could stress the contradictions that are present here? That the school is (rightly) advocating for students to take responsibility of their sexual health, yet at the same time only deeming some students "ready" to take upon that responsibility? You could even work in the issue of who is deemed the proper authority to judge when teenagers are "ready" to have sex.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I like that you bring up the importance of testing for other STDs, as well
Thanks for the suggestions! I really do need to expand this a little bit...
ReplyDeleteI really like your letter. When I was reading it and I got to the part about 'seniors only,' the side of me that has to deal with laws regarding children kicked in and I thought, "What are California laws like regarding access to reproductive health services and when are people considered legally independent from their parents in this matters?"
ReplyDeleteI'm really happy to see an article here that was reporting something positive though!
I agree, it is nice to read a letter to the editor with some positivity in it!
ReplyDeleteEffectively written and concise, it seems like it would have great potential to actually get published! I think expanding a little on the suggestion to make the testing available to all students is a really good idea. After all, the younger students will be less likely to know how to get tested outside the school, and may be more reluctant to to seek help. How cool that an assignment from class can spark this kind of discussion and potentially bring about real changes.