Re: A Vaccine to Save Women’s Lives
From: Dean Huffman . (dean@thehuffpeople.net)
Tue Feb 6 07:35:40 2007
..
Indeed, in some cases, behavior choice may affect whether or not someone is
exposed to HPV and at risk for cervical cancer. However, looked at from another
direction, the girls (and boys) are at high probablilty to make the WRONG
choice, irrespective of their upbringing. TO withhold the vaccine, the parent
is saying, "If you do not do things the way I want you to, I'll make sure that
you are at risk for dying young of cervical cancer." I think that is
irresponsible on the part of parents.
And what about the woman who remains "pure" until marriage then finds out that
her husband had an HPV infection which he has passed on to her. Dinged again.
It is not to far removed from the people who say that God developed AIDS to
punish sexual devients. Bull shit.
- - - -
From: Jamie <ajfields@pine-net.com>
Subject: Re: A Vaccine to Save Women’s Lives
Date: Feb 6, 2007 9:24 AM
A lot of parents, myself included (though I'm not in Texas) object to their
daughters being forced to take a new vaccine when a behavior choice affords the
same protection.
At Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Dean Huffman . wrote:
>
>..
>
>Editorial (NY Times)
>
>A Vaccine to Save Women’s Lives
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/opinion/06tue2.html
>
>Published: February 6, 2007
>
>Congratulations to Texas for becoming the first state to require vaccinating
>young schoolgirls — ages 11 and 12 — against a sexually transmitted
virus that
>causes cervical cancer and genital warts. Other states would be wise to follow
>the same path.
>
>There is no doubt that Merck’s vaccine against the human papillomavirus,
given
>in three shots over eight months, is highly effective. It provides nearly
>perfect protection against two strains that cause 70 percent of all cases of
>cervical cancer, and against two other strains that cause 90 percent of
genital
>warts cases. (That still leaves 30 percent of the cervical cancer cases to
worry
>about, so women are urged to keep getting regular Pap tests to screen for
signs
>of the cancer.) The side effects are generally mild: pain or tenderness at the
>site of the injection.
>
>Many parents are appalled at the notion of vaccinating such young girls
against
>a sexually transmitted disease. But the medical reality is that the vaccine
>will generally not work after a woman has been infected, so it is best for
>girls to be vaccinated well before they become sexually active. The
nation’s
>top advisory committee of immunization experts has recommended that the
vaccine
>be routinely given to girls 11 and 12 years old.
>
>The most contentious issue is whether the shots should be required or simply
>recommended to parents through a strong educational campaign. Those opposed
to
>compulsory vaccination complain that there are already a slew of required
>vaccinations, so why heap on another, especially for a disease that is spread
>only through sexual contact? Critics also fear that HPV vaccination may lead
>some students to wrongly assume that they are protected against all sexually
>transmitted diseases, perhaps encouraging them to engage in risky behavior.
>
>None of these objections seem strong enough to forgo the protection against
a
>devastating disease. The United States records some 10,000 new cases of
>cervical cancer each year, and 3,700 cervical cancer deaths. Gov. Rick Perry
of
>Texas, a conservative Republican, has taken an “opt out” approach, in
which
>vaccination is required but parents can seek an exemption for reasons of
>conscience or religious beliefs.
>
>That makes sense to us. All students deserve protection against HPV infection,
>and the presumption should be that they will get it.
--
JFields, RN, BSN
