Goodness of comprehensive sex education and the morally questionable act of abstinence-only education

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has reported that adolescent boys and girls have high rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). For example, one in four (26%) females adolescents in the United State has at least one for the most common STIs, and among adolescent girls who reported ever having had sex, the STI prevalence was 40%. Partially in response to this health problem, abstinence-only programs have been implemented to change the sexual behaviors of the young and to reduce threats of STIs. However, scientific research presents evidence that abstinence-only interventions are ineffective in changing the sexual behaviors of the young.

Using a normative ethics approach, several health professionals question the logic of continuing to offer such ineffective, inaccurate and misleading programs. It is common in these discussions to present a set of moral principles that argue why a health action as abstinence-only education is right or wrong, good or bad, obligatory, permissible, forbidden or worthwhile. However, what is uncommon in the literature is the presentation of a metaethical approach that analyzes what health actions are, ethically speaking, good, essential, and desirable when attempting to prevent sexually transmitted diseases? This paper presents a metaethical analysis about the question of whether abstinence-only education and comprehensive sex education are “good” disease prevention and health promotion programs and is one of these alternatives a better alternative? The author concludes that abstinence-only education is morally questionable and comprehensive sex education is inherently good on scientific, educational and moral grounds.