this is quite the controversy. considering that cervical cancer comes from having premarital sex, smoking, multiple partners, and other things that don't pertain to me, i'm not too worried about it. i remember learning about it in a class of mine and people who live according to LDS standards most likely won't have a problem, especially if they are having their annual pap smears done.
Boy am I out of the loop! Had no idea people are thinking about legislating this one for young girls. As one who advocates immunizations for children, generally, I feel wishy-washy about this one. I also have a very strong skepticism about pharmaceutical companies. That is a huge windfall if it gets legislated. I'm guessing if parents can refuse to vaccinate against stuff like polio surely you can get out of this one, too, with relative ease.
Well you're right becks, it may not pertain to you personally because you have made good choices. But think about it in terms of how you would feel about this issue if you had daughters and you lived in a state that legislated this for your child or children.
There are many facets of this debate--one of them being that there doesn't appear to have been much debate yet at all.
well, if i did have daughters and lived in Texas, then i would probably have mixed feelings. on the one hand, i would feel upset about this law because i don't want it to seem okay that people have premarital sex. on the other hand, i would be glad for something like this because it would help girls who don't have the same standards from getting cervical cancer. mostly i would be angry if the vaccine was supposed to cost so much. 360 bucks is what they say, but people are getting charged 500-900 bucks! i say 360 is too much already especially if they want to make everyone get this vaccine.
No vaccine is completely mandatory. People ask for exemptions all the time, for religious reasons or whatever.
The day they demand my daughters have this vaccine is the day 1) they cough up the cash for it and 2) I sit my daughters down and say, "Here is yet another reason why you need to be a virgin until you're married - and also why you need to marry one."
I resent these legislators' assumption that my daughters will need it, the same way I resented my OBs trying to persuade me to take the HIV test. Sure, people make mistakes. But it's a lot easier to keep your pants on than buy condoms, take birth control, get an abortion, or get this vaccine. To me, this is the equivalent of saying to your child, "Don't have sex, but if you do, have safe sex."
Years ago, AIDS was a disease that only affected the sexually active. You could only get it by being in contact with the blood or semen of an infected person. It was easy enough to say that if you remain a virgin, you won't contract AIDS. However, it now strikes innocent people like children and babies, through the unwise decisions of others. Sometimes monogamous wives contract the disease through the unknown activities of their unfaithful spouses (or even through faithful spouses who have repented of a checkered past).
Remember, we can teach our daughters (and our sons) to be virtuous and chaste, but that doesn't mean they won't someday make an unwise choice, or even fall victim to someone else's poor judgement. There are so many spiritual and physical consequences to such an act...political platforms aside, I would prefer my children be protected against one more dire consequence.
One more thing: I do place high importance on celibacy before marriage. I also believe very strongly in repentance and the Atonement. While I realize this discussion is mainly about our concerns for our pre-teen and teenage daughters, since I am also in the "unmarried" boat, I find it extremely simplistic and naive to say be-a-virgin-and-marry-only-a-virgin. I am faithful to my covenants, but I am surely not a virgin anymore. And it is highly unlikely (and actually not that desirable to me) that I would marry a virgin at this point.
Perhaps I'm getting all riled up over nothing. We regularly give children vaccines for diseases that are nearly eradicated...that they have little to no chance of contracting. I don't think this vaccine would encourage promiscuity. If anything, I hope it would at least it would give them protection later in life against the aftermath of someone else's unwise decisions.
I agree with the daredevil mom. Others' unwise choices can affect us/our kids. As for AIDS, I personally have known two older women, widows, who contracted it from blood transfusions (and have since died). As for HPV, I've also known women who have it; I've known someone with pre-cancerous cells, someone with cancer- and they were married, in monogamous relationships. What about a virgin girl or woman who is forcibly raped? She didn't ask to no longer be a virgin, but could be infected by HPV. God forbid that happen to any of our children- but we do need to be realistic. I'm not for pharaceutical companies making a windfall on this one (or possibly making up for recent lawsuits they've had against them for Vioxx), and I'd like more research done because of the possible neurological side-effects- but, over all, I think it's a good thing to help eradicate a cancer. If a parent doesn't want the girl to have it, they may opt out. I have two girls and as long as it's proven safe, I'm encouraging them to get the vaccine. I've had a cervical biopsy and it's not pleasant.
OMG! I live in TEXAS! I had no idea- thanks for clue me in! I don't have girls, but I still would not want the government telling me to get this done! I'm sure they will have to revise the bill in TX- people are gonna get their panties in a wad over this one!
It looks like people have addressed some religious and/or political issues quite well.
It also looks like a lot of us are naive about HPV. Up until the past few months I would include myself in that group, but I have had reason to research this issue and have formed my own opinion. I have at least two family members and friends who have HPV. I have strong opinions about it.
Thanks for making us think a little more about it, Dalene.
I believe that if there is a vaccine that prevents the spread of a communicable disease, a life-threatening virus like HPV, it should be offered (or mandated as a routine childhood vaccine) for all appropriate persons.
"Approximately 20 million people are currently infected with HPV. At least 50 percent of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives. By age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have acquired genital HPV infection. About 6.2 million Americans get a new genital HPV infection each year." -- CDC.gov
As a nurse I have cared for people who contracted polio before the vaccine was developed. I also know that many adults, children & infants died from viruses like polio, Hepatitis B, rubella, small pox & chicken pox prior to the introduction of those vaccines.
We can feel that our rights as a parent are being usurped by the political machine (and I personally believe that pharmaceutical companies are among the most evil enterprises in the free world) but we must not ignore what I feel is the central issue: vaccines - all vaccines - save lives.
It is true that the adverse effects of any vaccine will not be fully realized until after millions have received it. And one can argue that vaccines have actually caused some deaths. But the number of deaths due to vaccinations is minute in comparison with the number of lives that have been preserved because of vaccines.
I would never allow my "religious beliefs" i.e. a belief that "my children won't do the things that would expose them to HPV" to stop me from encouraging vaccination for those I love.
We may think the pharmaceutical campaign is emotionally manipulative - and we would probably be right - but "One Less" is a damn good way to drive the point home that if it's your mother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, niece or friend who dies from cervical cancer when she could have been spared by receiving a vaccine, well, you might just consider tossing your religious and political views aside.
P.S. "The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2006, over 9,710 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer and 3,700 will die from this disease." -- CDC.gov
I'm with Melody, daredevil mom and wendelal. The Pharma companies are evil--don't get me started (don't even...) However, let's say you make one stupid mistake, you have an unfaithful partner, or you are assaulted. As much as you hate to count on the worst case scenario, maybe that's the reason you put some health safeguards in place.
Vaccines are not mandatory, there are always exceptions. As for the cost, the vaccine is new. People need to chill out a little: the cost will go down, insurance companies will begin to cover it, that's just the way these things work.
Being an R.N., Texan, and the father of a 25 week old embryonic girl (my first one), I have multiple interests in this story. I've been following it for a little bit. My questions are these: Is there clinical proof that this drug works? If it does, then why is the company lobbying the government to make it 'mandatory' when the company stands to make a big profit? Is that not a conflict of interest, or ethically questionable?
P.P.S. Something else to consider: Public health officials under direction of the WHO, CDC, and The United States Department of Health and Human Services are obligated to track, trend, control and where possible eradicate those diseases that pose a significant threat to the public health.
Politicians may be in bed with pharmaceutical folks, but requiring vaccination against certain cancer-causing strains of HPV (or any other communicable disease) is a responsible step on the part of government and is in the best interest of the public health.
Although HPV may not be a “reportable” disease (one that poses an immediate risk to the community) all sexually transmitted diseases are considered a significant public health risk and are tracked (as best they can) by local health departments.
The Utah State Department of Health web site is an excellent resource. You may want to check it out. I found the epidemiology page especially ineresting. http://health.utah.gov/epi/report.html
I think vaccines are a benfit to society. I agree that this vaccine should be made available to the public, using the most economicly friendly means possible. I would hate to have a loved one succumb to this type of cancer...which still does not make me like the idea of such a generous windfall for the pharmaceutical company....grrrrr.
I have enjoyed seeing the input from so many. I think it has been a healty discussion so far.
I have some serious skeptism about this mandating thing. Mainly it is just too soon after this vaccine was released. And its financed by the industry who stands to make a huge windfall. Also why no debate? Why must this be done without further information or points of view expressed?
I'm not necessarily opposed to the vaccine, as a mother, I just want some healthy debate and study and information before I make a decision for my daughter.
My conspiracy theory radar is off the map with this one. The HPV Vaccine is a fairly new development and certainly not something I want inflicted on my young girls at this stage of the game. I live in Texas, and I'm grateful that we homeschool so that our corrupt Governor Perry who is firmly in the pocket of Merck Pharmaceuticals cannot impose his will and judgment on the safety and well being of my daughters.
I really do hate it when government forces people to do things against their own volition. I'm conservative with very Libertarian "small government" tendencies. This whole debacle showcases why I believe government has seized too much power already and has crossed that "personal space" boundary. To break it down, "I don't want them all up in my bizness. Ya dig?"
First, I think this issue really raises more questions than anyone has satisfactorily answered.
According to the CDC: This vaccine is highly effective in preventing four types of HPV in young women who have not been previously exposed to HPV. This vaccine targets HPV types that cause up to 70% of all cervical cancers and about 90% of genital warts. The vaccine will not treat existing HPV infections or their complications.
Q. Could mandating vaccination for everyone create a sense of false security? The fact that this vaccine fails to prevent nearly a third of all cervical cancers due to HPV is alarming.
Also from the CDC: The length of vaccine protection (immunity) is usually not known when a vaccine is first introduced. So far, studies have found that vaccinated persons are protected for five years.
Q. Why vaccinate our 11-12 year-olds if it is unkown whether or not the vaccine protection would even last until the age when most girls who become sexually active begin having sex (age 17)?
Red flags:
One is the conflict of interest in Merck sponsoring leglislation to mandate the vaccine.
Two is Governor Perry, who has admittedly accepted campaign money from Merck, doing an end-run around the legislative process.
Biggest gripe: The message that our girls are going to be sexually active. I get sick and tired of the media telling my kids that everyone else is doing it--as if somehow there is something wrong with them NOT doing it. Truth is, the average age of first sexual intercourse for girls is 17 and hasn't changed by more than a few month in the last 20 years (Guttmacher Institute).
Other gripe: People not knowing their own risk for contracting STDs. People who choose to remain chaste till marriage still run the risk of contracting an STD from his/her spouse. Sometimes people come with a past and sometimes they choose not to disclose that past. And sometimes people's spouses cheat on them and they don't know it, putting them not only at risk for getting an STD but also for not treating it because they just don't know.
So I would say regarding this issue as well as with pornography, let's pull our collective heads out of the sand!
(And in case you guys think this doesn't pertain to you, here's another story: I know of a man who has met the love of his life. And he is the love of her life. Only they cannot marry, because in an earlier time of his life he chose poorly and married someone who exposed him to HPV. That relationship is over, yet he cannot progress with the one he loves because for them to marry would put her at risk of HPV and cervical cancer--even if she had the vaccine. This is a risk she is wisely not willing to take. Choices have consequences and can break hearts, and they do not always just affect the person making the choices.)
That said, and although I would definitely want more information and talk to my kids' pediatrician first, I would consider having my daughter vaccinated. Not because the government told me I had to (yes, I do know you can get exemptions) but because HPV is an ugly disease and cervical cancer kills. I would likely not do it at 11 or 12, however. That just seems way too young.
Also, regarding Hepatitis C (I can't remember if it was here or elsewhere someone brought it up as being a sexually transmitted disease), it is transmitted other ways as well. My friend was volunteering in her second-grader's classroom and administered first aid to a child who had cut herself. Unbeknownst to her, that child had Hepatitis C. Her act of kindness not only put her at risk, but also her young family, as the school failed to notify her of her possible contamination for a couple of days. Fortunately, after several months of testing, she remains free of the disease.
I hate that Merck is involved. I'd hate to think this was just another case of a big drug company using their money to convince a politician to create a law to sell more of their products. But hey, let's call it like we see it. This has little to do with health and a lot to do with money.
Parent's should in no way to superseded by the state in this matter. The fact that they have to file a petition to keep their children from receiving unwanted shots is very disturbing. I hate this.
Well, Merck is trying to rush this because another company (or two) is really close to their own HPV vaccine. The other issue is that the dosing requirements are a little heavy--something like 3 shots over a period of time. If you can afford to wait, they're bound to increase the efficacy, streamline delivery, and reduce the prices.
12 seems very young, but the vaccine is only effective if you actually administer it before HPV exposure. Even though the average age of sexual activity is 17, you're still talking about a number of girls having potential exposure before that age.
When you look at the numbers, they are astounding. 80% of women will have had HPV by age 50. EIGHTY. That's a striking number. It's obvious that, even if we're not talking about cancer as a complication, a vaccine that prevents HPV would be a boon to the vast majority of the female population.
24 comments:
this is quite the controversy. considering that cervical cancer comes from having premarital sex, smoking, multiple partners, and other things that don't pertain to me, i'm not too worried about it. i remember learning about it in a class of mine and people who live according to LDS standards most likely won't have a problem, especially if they are having their annual pap smears done.
Boy am I out of the loop! Had no idea people are thinking about legislating this one for young girls. As one who advocates immunizations for children, generally, I feel wishy-washy about this one. I also have a very strong skepticism about pharmaceutical companies. That is a huge windfall if it gets legislated. I'm guessing if parents can refuse to vaccinate against stuff like polio surely you can get out of this one, too, with relative ease.
I'm ready to move.
This just reeks of political corruption....How can you justify passing a bill that so strongly favors a single enterprise?
Well you're right becks, it may not pertain to you personally because you have made good choices. But think about it in terms of how you would feel about this issue if you had daughters and you lived in a state that legislated this for your child or children.
There are many facets of this debate--one of them being that there doesn't appear to have been much debate yet at all.
well, if i did have daughters and lived in Texas, then i would probably have mixed feelings. on the one hand, i would feel upset about this law because i don't want it to seem okay that people have premarital sex. on the other hand, i would be glad for something like this because it would help girls who don't have the same standards from getting cervical cancer. mostly i would be angry if the vaccine was supposed to cost so much. 360 bucks is what they say, but people are getting charged 500-900 bucks! i say 360 is too much already especially if they want to make everyone get this vaccine.
No vaccine is completely mandatory. People ask for exemptions all the time, for religious reasons or whatever.
The day they demand my daughters have this vaccine is the day 1) they cough up the cash for it and 2) I sit my daughters down and say, "Here is yet another reason why you need to be a virgin until you're married - and also why you need to marry one."
I resent these legislators' assumption that my daughters will need it, the same way I resented my OBs trying to persuade me to take the HIV test. Sure, people make mistakes. But it's a lot easier to keep your pants on than buy condoms, take birth control, get an abortion, or get this vaccine. To me, this is the equivalent of saying to your child, "Don't have sex, but if you do, have safe sex."
Since you asked. :)
It does make me wonder, though....
Years ago, AIDS was a disease that only affected the sexually active. You could only get it by being in contact with the blood or semen of an infected person. It was easy enough to say that if you remain a virgin, you won't contract AIDS. However, it now strikes innocent people like children and babies, through the unwise decisions of others. Sometimes monogamous wives contract the disease through the unknown activities of their unfaithful spouses (or even through faithful spouses who have repented of a checkered past).
Remember, we can teach our daughters (and our sons) to be virtuous and chaste, but that doesn't mean they won't someday make an unwise choice, or even fall victim to someone else's poor judgement. There are so many spiritual and physical consequences to such an act...political platforms aside, I would prefer my children be protected against one more dire consequence.
One more thing: I do place high importance on celibacy before marriage. I also believe very strongly in repentance and the Atonement. While I realize this discussion is mainly about our concerns for our pre-teen and teenage daughters, since I am also in the "unmarried" boat, I find it extremely simplistic and naive to say be-a-virgin-and-marry-only-a-virgin. I am faithful to my covenants, but I am surely not a virgin anymore. And it is highly unlikely (and actually not that desirable to me) that I would marry a virgin at this point.
Perhaps I'm getting all riled up over nothing. We regularly give children vaccines for diseases that are nearly eradicated...that they have little to no chance of contracting. I don't think this vaccine would encourage promiscuity. If anything, I hope it would at least it would give them protection later in life against the aftermath of someone else's unwise decisions.
I agree with the daredevil mom. Others' unwise choices can affect us/our kids. As for AIDS, I personally have known two older women, widows, who contracted it from blood transfusions (and have since died). As for HPV, I've also known women who have it; I've known someone with pre-cancerous cells, someone with cancer- and they were married, in monogamous relationships. What about a virgin girl or woman who is forcibly raped? She didn't ask to no longer be a virgin, but could be infected by HPV. God forbid that happen to any of our children- but we do need to be realistic. I'm not for pharaceutical companies making a windfall on this one (or possibly making up for recent lawsuits they've had against them for Vioxx), and I'd like more research done because of the possible neurological side-effects- but, over all, I think it's a good thing to help eradicate a cancer. If a parent doesn't want the girl to have it, they may opt out. I have two girls and as long as it's proven safe, I'm encouraging them to get the vaccine. I've had a cervical biopsy and it's not pleasant.
OMG! I live in TEXAS! I had no idea- thanks for clue me in! I don't have girls, but I still would not want the government telling me to get this done! I'm sure they will have to revise the bill in TX- people are gonna get their panties in a wad over this one!
I'm with the daredevil mom and wendelal.
"The factors that may increase the risk of cervical cancer in women with HPV infection include smoking and having many children".www.cancer.gov
"Mr Perry(Texas governor)said parents could exempt their children if they p\objected for reasons of religious beliefs." www.news.com or news.yahoo.com
It looks like people have addressed some religious and/or political issues quite well.
It also looks like a lot of us are naive about HPV. Up until the past few months I would include myself in that group, but I have had reason to research this issue and have formed my own opinion. I have at least two family members and friends who have HPV. I have strong opinions about it.
Thanks for making us think a little more about it, Dalene.
I believe that if there is a vaccine that prevents the spread of a communicable disease, a life-threatening virus like HPV, it should be offered (or mandated as a routine childhood vaccine) for all appropriate persons.
"Approximately 20 million people are currently infected with HPV. At least 50 percent of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives. By age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have acquired genital HPV infection. About 6.2 million Americans get a new genital HPV infection each year." -- CDC.gov
As a nurse I have cared for people who contracted polio before the vaccine was developed. I also know that many adults, children & infants died from viruses like polio, Hepatitis B, rubella, small pox & chicken pox prior to the introduction of those vaccines.
We can feel that our rights as a parent are being usurped by the political machine (and I personally believe that pharmaceutical companies are among the most evil enterprises in the free world) but we must not ignore what I feel is the central issue: vaccines - all vaccines - save lives.
It is true that the adverse effects of any vaccine will not be fully realized until after millions have received it. And one can argue that vaccines have actually caused some deaths. But the number of deaths due to vaccinations is minute in comparison with the number of lives that have been preserved because of vaccines.
I would never allow my "religious beliefs" i.e. a belief that "my children won't do the things that would expose them to HPV" to stop me from encouraging vaccination for those I love.
We may think the pharmaceutical campaign is emotionally manipulative - and we would probably be right - but "One Less" is a damn good way to drive the point home that if it's your mother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, niece or friend who dies from cervical cancer when she could have been spared by receiving a vaccine, well, you might just consider tossing your religious and political views aside.
P.S.
"The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2006, over 9,710 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer and 3,700 will die from this disease." -- CDC.gov
I'm with Melody, daredevil mom and wendelal. The Pharma companies are evil--don't get me started (don't even...)
However, let's say you make one stupid mistake, you have an unfaithful partner, or you are assaulted. As much as you hate to count on the worst case scenario, maybe that's the reason you put some health safeguards in place.
Vaccines are not mandatory, there are always exceptions. As for the cost, the vaccine is new. People need to chill out a little: the cost will go down, insurance companies will begin to cover it, that's just the way these things work.
Being an R.N., Texan, and the father of a 25 week old embryonic girl (my first one), I have multiple interests in this story. I've been following it for a little bit. My questions are these: Is there clinical proof that this drug works? If it does, then why is the company lobbying the government to make it 'mandatory' when the company stands to make a big profit? Is that not a conflict of interest, or ethically questionable?
P.P.S.
Something else to consider: Public health officials under direction of the WHO, CDC, and The United States Department of Health and Human Services are obligated to track, trend, control and where possible eradicate those diseases that pose a significant threat to the public health.
Politicians may be in bed with pharmaceutical folks, but requiring vaccination against certain cancer-causing strains of HPV (or any other communicable disease) is a responsible step on the part of government and is in the best interest of the public health.
Although HPV may not be a “reportable” disease (one that poses an immediate risk to the community) all sexually transmitted diseases are considered a significant public health risk and are tracked (as best they can) by local health departments.
The Utah State Department of Health web site is an excellent resource. You may want to check it out. I found the epidemiology page especially ineresting. http://health.utah.gov/epi/report.html
my second two cents.
I think vaccines are a benfit to society. I agree that this vaccine should be made available to the public, using the most economicly friendly means possible. I would hate to have a loved one succumb to this type of cancer...which still does not make me like the idea of such a generous windfall for the pharmaceutical company....grrrrr.
I have enjoyed seeing the input from so many. I think it has been a healty discussion so far.
I have some serious skeptism about this mandating thing. Mainly it is just too soon after this vaccine was released. And its financed by the industry who stands to make a huge windfall. Also why no debate? Why must this be done without further information or points of view expressed?
I'm not necessarily opposed to the vaccine, as a mother, I just want some healthy debate and study and information before I make a decision for my daughter.
My conspiracy theory radar is off the map with this one. The HPV Vaccine is a fairly new development and certainly not something I want inflicted on my young girls at this stage of the game. I live in Texas, and I'm grateful that we homeschool so that our corrupt Governor Perry who is firmly in the pocket of Merck Pharmaceuticals cannot impose his will and judgment on the safety and well being of my daughters.
I really do hate it when government forces people to do things against their own volition. I'm conservative with very Libertarian "small government" tendencies. This whole debacle showcases why I believe government has seized too much power already and has crossed that "personal space" boundary. To break it down, "I don't want them all up in my bizness. Ya dig?"
Great discussion going on here--thank you.
Here are my two cents:
First, I think this issue really raises more questions than anyone has satisfactorily answered.
According to the CDC: This vaccine is highly effective in preventing four types of HPV in young women who have not been previously exposed to HPV. This vaccine targets HPV types that cause up to 70% of all cervical cancers and about 90% of genital warts. The vaccine will not treat existing HPV infections or their complications.
Q. Could mandating vaccination for everyone create a sense of false security? The fact that this vaccine fails to prevent nearly a third of all cervical cancers due to HPV is alarming.
Also from the CDC: The length of vaccine protection (immunity) is usually not known when a vaccine is first introduced. So far, studies have found that vaccinated persons are protected for five years.
Q. Why vaccinate our 11-12 year-olds if it is unkown whether or not the vaccine protection would even last until the age when most girls who become sexually active begin having sex (age 17)?
Red flags:
One is the conflict of interest in Merck sponsoring leglislation to mandate the vaccine.
Two is Governor Perry, who has admittedly accepted campaign money from Merck, doing an end-run around the legislative process.
Biggest gripe: The message that our girls are going to be sexually active. I get sick and tired of the media telling my kids that everyone else is doing it--as if somehow there is something wrong with them NOT doing it. Truth is, the average age of first sexual intercourse for girls is 17 and hasn't changed by more than a few month in the last 20 years (Guttmacher Institute).
Other gripe: People not knowing their own risk for contracting STDs. People who choose to remain chaste till marriage still run the risk of contracting an STD from his/her spouse. Sometimes people come with a past and sometimes they choose not to disclose that past. And sometimes people's spouses cheat on them and they don't know it, putting them not only at risk for getting an STD but also for not treating it because they just don't know.
So I would say regarding this issue as well as with pornography, let's pull our collective heads out of the sand!
(And in case you guys think this doesn't pertain to you, here's another story: I know of a man who has met the love of his life. And he is the love of her life. Only they cannot marry, because in an earlier time of his life he chose poorly and married someone who exposed him to HPV. That relationship is over, yet he cannot progress with the one he loves because for them to marry would put her at risk of HPV and cervical cancer--even if she had the vaccine. This is a risk she is wisely not willing to take. Choices have consequences and can break hearts, and they do not always just affect the person making the choices.)
That said, and although I would definitely want more information and talk to my kids' pediatrician first, I would consider having my daughter vaccinated. Not because the government told me I had to (yes, I do know you can get exemptions) but because HPV is an ugly disease and cervical cancer kills. I would likely not do it at 11 or 12, however. That just seems way too young.
Also, regarding Hepatitis C (I can't remember if it was here or elsewhere someone brought it up as being a sexually transmitted disease), it is transmitted other ways as well. My friend was volunteering in her second-grader's classroom and administered first aid to a child who had cut herself. Unbeknownst to her, that child had Hepatitis C. Her act of kindness not only put her at risk, but also her young family, as the school failed to notify her of her possible contamination for a couple of days. Fortunately, after several months of testing, she remains free of the disease.
I am so glad you had this discussion! at school today, we were all talking about this- (A) we live in TX (B) we are all going into the medical field-
There are many more than just 2 sides to this issue!
I hate that Merck is involved. I'd hate to think this was just another case of a big drug company using their money to convince a politician to create a law to sell more of their products. But hey, let's call it like we see it. This has little to do with health and a lot to do with money.
Parent's should in no way to superseded by the state in this matter. The fact that they have to file a petition to keep their children from receiving unwanted shots is very disturbing. I hate this.
Well, Merck is trying to rush this because another company (or two) is really close to their own HPV vaccine. The other issue is that the dosing requirements are a little heavy--something like 3 shots over a period of time. If you can afford to wait, they're bound to increase the efficacy, streamline delivery, and reduce the prices.
12 seems very young, but the vaccine is only effective if you actually administer it before HPV exposure. Even though the average age of sexual activity is 17, you're still talking about a number of girls having potential exposure before that age.
When you look at the numbers, they are astounding. 80% of women will have had HPV by age 50. EIGHTY. That's a striking number. It's obvious that, even if we're not talking about cancer as a complication, a vaccine that prevents HPV would be a boon to the vast majority of the female population.
I appreciated this story from the radio today.
Thanks for the link azucar.
Post a Comment