Re: A Vaccine to Save Women’s Lives
From: Richard Chudacoff, MD (rchudacoff@mylinuxisp.com)
Tue Feb 6 08:22:11 2007
And Texas is supposed to be a republican state. Wasn't that the party that
wanted to restrict government intrusion into individual's lives? Well, the
USSR used to be the "red" party, and now it is the republicans. How things
change.
--
Richard Chudacoff, MD, FACOG
Las Vegas International Center for Advanced Gynecologic Care
(Specializing in Minimally and Non-Invasive Surgery)
3150 N Tenaya Way # 270
Las Vegas, NV 89128
Tel: (702) 360-9630
Cel: (281) 236-5702
email:
richard.chudacoff@obgyn.net
rchudacoff@mylinuxisp.com
rchudacoff@deployedmedical.com
rchudacoff@lasvegasgyncenter.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net [mailto:ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of Kim Elise
Goldman
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 7:09 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L
Subject: Re: A Vaccine to Save Women's Lives
Dean,
An adult woman can make her own decisions.
A 9 year old girl having health care decisions made by the
legislature is just wrong no matter how you look at it.
And I disagree, it is not saying "if you don't do what I want I'll
make sure that you are at risk....". It is saying *I* want to be the
one to decide while my daughter is still a child whether or not I
believe the benefits are worth the risks. I don't want a boneheaded
legislator with no medical knowledge making that decision.
And if it is population hygiene we are discussing I still want to
know why we are not vaccinating boys?
Kim
On Feb 6, 2007, at 9:37 AM, Dean Huffman . wrote:
> .
>
> 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
>
