Should Parents Be Able To Choose Not To Immunize Against Cervical Cancer?

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 10:45am

OK - this is somewhat astounding to me.

A vaccine against cervical cancer has been developed. Public health advocates want to use the shots as part of mandatory immunization shots given to teenagers to prevent cervical cancer. Social conservatives are against such mandtory shots because they think that they could encourage sexual activity.

Apparently, one of the benefits of this drug is that is also prevents some sexually transmitted diseases. Conservatives in the federal government will be playing a pivotal role in determining how broadly the vaccine is used.

"The vaccine protects women against strains of a ubiquitous germ called the human papilloma virus. Although many strains of the virus are innocuous, some can cause cancerous lesions on the cervix (the outer end of the uterus), making them the primary cause of this cancer in the United States. Cervical cancer strikes more than 10,000 U.S. women each year, killing more than 3,700.

The vaccine appears to be virtually 100 percent effective against two of the most common cancer-causing HPV strains. Merck, whose vaccine is further along, plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration by the end of the year for approval to sell the shots."

So, we will risk cervical cancer because we are afraid of pre-marital sex. . . if you were teaching your kids right, why would the vaccine matter. I can understand parents wanting control of what happens to their children, and if this was not something that could prevent a deadly disease, I might understand, but they are willing to risk kids getting cancer?

Thoughts?

Debate rages on use of cervical cancer vaccine Updated On: 11/1/05 at 10:45 AM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 10:48am

Is that the only reason, or are some parents concerned about the potential side-effects of something so new?

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 10:50am

According to the article, the only objection raised was the possible side effect of encouraging sex.

If the issue is that the vaccine is too new and we need to see the side effects before making it mandatory, I would think that is a valid argument. If the only concern is that it might encourage kids to have sex, then I have no logical comprehension of that position.

From the article:

"Conservative groups say they welcome the vaccine as an important public health tool but oppose making it mandatory.

"Some people have raised the issue of whether this vaccine may be sending an overall message to teen-agers that, 'We expect you to be sexually active,' " said Reginald Finger, a doctor trained in public health who served as a medical analyst for Focus on the Family before being appointed to the ACIP in 2003.

"There are people who sense that it could cause people to feel like sexual behaviors are safer if they are vaccinated and may lead to more sexual behavior because they feel safe," said Finger, emphasizing he does not endorse that position and is withholding judgment until the issue comes before the vaccine policy panel for a formal recommendation.

Conservative medical groups have been fielding calls from concerned parents and organizations, officials said.

"I've talked to some who have said, 'This is going to sabotage our abstinence message,' " said Gene Rudd, associate executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations. But Rudd said most people change their minds once they learn more, adding he would probably want his children immunized. Rudd, however, draws the line at making the vaccine mandatory.

"Parents should have the choice. There are those who would say, 'We can provide a better, healthier alternative than the vaccine, and that is to teach abstinence,' " Rudd said."


Updated On: 11/1/05 at 10:50 AM

[katygrace84]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 10:57am

Good point, Rath. Side effects can be almost worse than the illness itself these days. But this is also the virus that causes genital warts. Given the choice between some possibly scary side-effects or cancer and genital warts, I think I'll take the side-effects. I was reading this thinking, where the h*ll was this vaccine when my friends were getting HPV and having their reproductive systems and self-esteem permanently scarred? Very recently I read that 75% of the population either had or would contract HPV. I'm sure that number has probably gone up a little. This is a VIRUS! It's PERMANENT!! It can lead to CANCER! And it's now PREVENTABLE! HELLO, PARENTS???!!! IS ANYONE F*CKING HOME???!!!!

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 11:01am

I have a friend who has this, got it from her b/f who was fooling around on her, and she's had to go through a lot of medical sh*t because of it. So I'm all for it, believe me.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 11:06am

I actually wonder if insurance companies might require this for coverage. I do not know if they require other vaccines in order to provide insurance coverage. But, if there is a known risk, and you intentionally decide not to protect yourself or your children from it, should an insurance company, or the federal government, have to pay for treatment?

And, it may well be that come age 18, those who have not be vaccinated can choose to do so.

It just seems so ass-backwards.

[katygrace84]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 11:08am

I have a hard time saying that we should make it mandatory, simply because it's another way of taking away a woman's right to choose what is best for her. But I can't imagine a parent NOT wanting their daughter to be protected from this disease. I wonder if they realize that HPV is something that can be contracted through ANY genital contact. Their daughters can still be virgins and get HPV just by fooling around. In fact, that's how one of my friends got it. She's now had to have several surgeries to have parts of her cervix burned off becuse of lesions and precancerous cells. My other friend has to go in every once in awhile to have warts burned off. Do parents really want this for their children?
I don't have health insurance and I have a fear of needles but you better believe my a** will find a way to get this shot when it comes out. This disease is just too scary.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 11:09am

Another example of how conservatives are attempting to roll back the advances of science in the name of "religion."

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 11:11am

We have several friends that do not vaccinate. They are liberals worried about autism, etc. We were late with C10's MMR and she got the mumps. There is no reason for a child in America in the 20 Century to get the mumps. And, we were at a wedding which nearly ruined a trip.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 11:15am

Again, none of the objections raised appear to be against the side effects of the vaccine - only that by getting the vaccine, you might encourage certain conduct.

If there were side effects that were problematic, that is a legitimate reason to oppose vaccination. That does not appear to be the objection at this point.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 11:20am

Why yes, Y, that is ignorant.

[katygrace84]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 11:26am

Until we also develop vaccines for AIDS, gonorrhea, syphilis and the many other STD's out there (as well as a fool-proof birth control method), there are plenty of other scary scenarios for these parents and their teenagers to be afraid of. I would think that these parents would breathe a sigh of relief that there is now another disease that they can help protect their children from.

[wendy72]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 11:43am

I had a friend who died from cervical cancer--a 90% curable cancer. Having seen what she went thru--there is NO question in my mind this immunization is positive. End of story.

[Rose_MacShane]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 11:56am

This makes me so mad. WARNING: Extreme sarcasm follows.

Why, of *course* a vaccine against cervical cancer will encourage women to f**k indiscriminately, because nobody's doing that now! Science is wrong because it gives women, who are already can't be trusted what with their vaginas and all, an opportunity to be sluts! It's wrong! Put them all in burkas!

Is it me, or does it feel like this country takes more and more backward steps every day? And you just know a man made this decision...(no offense to the guys on the board)

[bunchamuncha]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 11:59am

Well the vaccine hasn't been approved yet.
HPV in 50% of the cases corrects itself (a percentage of people do develop the kind that produces genital warts)
Early tests indicate in only works if you haven't gotten HPV (in order to get HPV you have to be sexually active)
The vaccine would work for both men and women, which is interesting.

I understand the parents viewpoint of false safety being given to their kids, but these are some of the same people who oppose condoms b/c they think it will encourage sexual behavior too.
Parents get to choose now if their kids get vaccinated for other diseases. Do kids get a choice?

[Elphaba]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 12:12pm

yes they'll take the risk......these are the dame idiot parents who do NOT want condoms handed out at schools.......they don't care if it protects (somewhat) against AIDS......no, their kids don't have sex (yeah right).........ridiculous......ostriches with heads in the sand

[Taryn]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 12:57pm

God, people amaze me sometimes with their stupidity. It's CANCER PREVENTION, for God's sake!

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 1:09pm

If there were an immunization against HIV, would parents be concerned that it encourages sex? You're supposed to get hepititus shots already, I don't know how this is really any difference than this situation.

I'm sorry, but if someone would rather risk their child getting a deadly disease than even hint at breaking their stance on abstinence, I don't think these people should be parents in the first place.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 2:54pm

Can you imagine the scenario of a child wants the vaccine and the parent refuses? What does a Dr. do in that situation? At what point, other than the arbitrary age of 18 (and younger for some contractual issues) does a child's will become binding over a parents?

[bunchamuncha]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 3:12pm

Perhaps the doctors can just give it with the hepatitis shot and say it's a combo shot type of a situation. I suppose it really depends on how it's presented. If it's presented as a shot that prevents cervical cancer (and you leave off the HPV info) I don't know that many parents would question it.
Don't colleges require Hepatitis shots? maybe this one will be required as well.

[shira467]

Posted: 11/1/05 at 3:14pm

In this day and age, I think it should be highly encouraged. I don't think we can force it, however.

And honestly? Just because you have won't get cervical cancer doesn't mean you won't get anything else -- so you still have to be smart and resposible in your activity.