Re: A Vaccine to Save Women’s Lives
From: Meenan, Anna (annam@uic.edu)
Wed Feb 7 11:03:06 2007
I didn't mean to say that my 9-year-old daughter
will NEVER be at risk for contracting or
spreading HPV. (and I don't have a 9-year-old
daughter. She's 18.) I just meant to say that I
strenuously object to a stockholder in a
pharmaceutical company MANDATING that my
4th-grader (if I had one) get injected with their
product within months after it hits the market,
to prevent a disease that she is not at risk for
AT THIS TIME. Since she's 18, I did get her
vaccinated, even though she is not at risk at
this time. The chance that she will become at
risk is much higher. I might even be in favor of
mandated vaccination at younger ages AFTER THE
VACCINE HAS BEEN ON THE MARKET FOR A COUPLE OF
YEARS.
Anna Meenan, MD
>
>I do take issue, however, with statements such as “ [my] … 9-yr-old daughter …
>is not at risk for [HPV], and not at risk for spreading same to ANYONE.” She
>might not be at risk TODAY, but if one thinks
>that one can control her daughter
>forever, that is vary naive thinking. Many, if not most, daughters will have
>sexual intercourse some time, either during high school, during college, or at
>some other time. The act of sexual intercourse will put her at risk. Even if
>she has sexual intercourse only in marriage, and only with her husband, she is
>still at risk for HPV. And it may well be too late at that time. In many
>respects, the vaccine will protect the girl against herself. She will almost
>never be as “pure” as her parents think. Waiting until the later teenage years
>or early adulthood might be too late to give protection to the young lady. The
>reason for suggesting that the vaccine should be given in the 9 – 11 year old
>age group is that this is the time when there is a very high probability that
>they have not yet been exposed to HPV and, hence, are able to be protected.
>Once they are exposed, it is too late.
>
>Thus, if the only reason one has to withhold the vaccination is that “my
>daughter will never be infected because she
>leads a moral life, and I will make
>sure that she continues to do so, and therefore
>does not need the vaccination”,
>then I submit that the parent is very naïve and is putting the child at
>unnecessary risk.
>
>I must admit that I have some problems with the governor of Texas making the
>vaccination mandatory. However, if the decision is left to parents whether or
>not to vaccinate (MMR, polio, tetanus, hepatitis B, etc., etc.) then far too
>many people will fail to be vaccinated and not only will they be at risk, but
>the benefits of herd immunity will also be lost.
>Much as I hate to say it, some
>people must be protected against themselves. The same argument can be made for
>other dangerous activities, such as not wearing seat belts, not using a helmet
>on a motorcycle, etc.
>
>Just my thoughts. As they say, I might be wrong (but I doubt it).
>
>- - - -
>
>From: "Meenan, Anna" <annam@uic.edu>
>Subject: Re: A Vaccine to Save Women’s Lives
>Date: Feb 7, 2007 10:07 AM
>
>I think the discussion of behavior choices and
>their protective effects was more
>directed at the 9-year-olds. I would object to anyone mandating that i have a
>9-yr-old daughter immunized with a new vaccine against something she is not at
>risk for, and not at risk for spreading same to
>ANYONE. I certainly agree with
>voluntarily having daughters immunized at any age you choose. I would have
>waited a bit more to have my daughter immunized except that she is going off
>our insurance this summer.
>
>Anna Meenan, MD
>
>>A "behavior choice" does not really offer protection. I have taken
>care
>>of HPV disease in women who (as far as I can ascertain) were in 100%
>>mutually monogamous relationships - begun after age 18 - widowed - no
>>new sexual partner - but HPV disease showed up late in life. It was
>>dormant there for those many years.
>>
>>The testing done during development of the vaccine showed that 8 out of
>>10 adults at age 50 had had an infection in the past for at least one of
>>the sexually transmissable high risk strains.
> >
>>So even if you CAN GUARANTEE (at age 9-12) that the young lady will ONLY
>>have ONE sexual partner her ENTIRE life - and that partner will have
>>NEVER had another partner AND it will all start after the age of 18,
>>then you can argue you can get away without the vaccine.
>>
>>However, statistics are that that scenario is very improbable. Not
>>impossible, but just improbable.
>>
>>Even amongst those that preach and preach about morality of things -
>>there are sure a lot of those folks getting out in the public eye for
>>less than stellar sexual activities.
>>
>>The REALITY of life in 2007 is that most folks will have a few sexual
>>partners before "settling" down into a mutually exclusive relationship.
>>
>>Obviously I have strong feelings on this one!
>>
>>Joanne
>>
>>At Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Jamie wrote:
>>>
>>>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:
>>>>
>>>>..
>>
>>--
>>Joanne Bulley, MD, FACOG
>>Solo gyn
>>Keene, NH USA
>
|
|
