Re: A Vaccine to Save Women?s Lives
From: Jamie (ajfields@pine-net.com)
Tue Feb 6 12:28:43 2007
I definitely agree with you in regards to blaming the victim of sexual
assault. I still don't think that risk is high enough to justify at
this point vaccinating my 11yo, and I would be furious if I were in the
state mandating it.
Of course behavior is only protective so long as we have control of the
behavior, but the vaccine is also protective only so long as we aren't
exposed to a strain that isn't covered. That's what I meant by "as
protective"
At Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Barbara Nicol wrote:
>
><HEAD>
><META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
><BODY>
><DIV>I don't think it's the only reason, no, but it surely is a good reason. I'm mostly disputing the contention that behavior is 100% protective (I think Kim used the 100% number) or that it offers the "same protection" (Jamie's phrase). I agree that behavior is highly protective; I'm just being nitpicky about what seems to be a certain over-certainty about behavior. It would be nice, if one were raped, to be vaccinated against every possible disease, and rather devastating to acquire a vaccine-preventable disease that way. </DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV> More importantly, there is a subtext here that is one of the most devastating subtexts around for rape victims - that they had control over their rape. (If behavior offers the same protection as the vaccine, then women have control over rape, right?) So I'm not that impressed by "behavior-prevention" as equal to vaccine prevention. It's different, and valuable in its own way, but not a replacement. In general, I believe that providers should avoid discussing behavior as though it were 100% protective against STDs, in consideration to rape victims everywhere. I believe Jamie and Kim probably know this, and email is a tricky medium that way, since messages are short and subtext is long - and resides in the eye of the reader!</DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV>I'm not as amazed with the vaccine as the NYT appears to be, but I'm not impressed that there are a lot of risks to it either. I do think it's a bit early to be mandating it. Likely there will be a more-valent vaccine in the future and then we'll be revaccinating loads of people. </DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV>- Barb Nicol, M.D.<BR><BR><BR></DIV>
><BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: DoctorJoe@aol.com <BR>Sent: Feb 6, 2007 10:03 AM <BR>To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L <OB-GYN-L@DNS.OBGYN.NET><BR>Subject: Re: A Vaccine to Save Women?s Lives <BR><BR><ZZZHTML><ZZZHEAD><ZZZMETA content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv="Content-Type"><ZZZMETA name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11"></ZZZHEAD><ZZZBODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial" rightMargin="7" topMargin="7" leftMargin="7" bottomMargin="7"><FONT id=role_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
><DIV>
><DIV>In a message dated 2/6/2007 11:55:31 A.M. Central Standard Time, blnicol@ix.netcom.com writes:</DIV>
><BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>No amount of good behavior, no zip code, and no upbringing will protect our daughters against rape. So it's not exactly the same protection, is it?<BR><BR>Not thrilled with the decision either, by the way, but I reject the argument that behavior change is protective.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
><DIV></DIV>
><DIV>I wasn't aware that rape was the bottom line for why we vaccinate our girl children. Have we talked about this before?</DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV>Joe P.</DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV>The pen is mightier than the sword, but only if the pen is held by Chuck Norris."</DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV> </DIV></FONT></ZZZBODY></ZZZHTML></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY>
--
JFields, RN, BSN
