OB-GYN-L Messages for February, 2007: Re: A Vaccine to Save Women's Lives

Re: A Vaccine to Save Women's Lives

From: Raymond Stephen

stephen.raymond@dhhs.tas.gov.au

Wed Feb 7 15:14:18 2007

Steve

-----Original Message----- From: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net [mailto:ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of Kim Elise Goldman Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2007 1:50 AM To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L Subject: Re: A Vaccine to Save Women's Lives

Here here Jamie! I am not appalled at vaccinating to prevent a sexually transmitted disease. I am appalled at the marketing and the ignorance surrounding this vaccine. It does not prevent ALL HPV strains It does not prevent ALL cervical cancers It does NOT have a long track record and we are vaccinating a most vulnerable population - young girls BEFORE they reach reproductive age. We are NOT vaccinating the carriers (boys) and if the goal is really to decrease transmission of HPV that is certainly reasonable. And I am appalled at the MANDATORY status of the vaccination. Give me a break. So boys can go to school without taking a new and unproven vaccine but girls have to stay home if they don't get the vaccine.....somehow that doesn't sound right to me.

Great we have an HPV vaccine that cuts down on the risks of cervical CA but does not eliminate them ... don't you dare tell me MY DAUGHTER has to be a guinea pig. When we have a long enough history to know what, if any, effects this vaccine may have long term including fertility effects then the discussion may be different but right now all this proves to me is that Texas is as backward as the president it spawned. And yes, there is the fact that she can be 100% protected from HPV without the vaccine which makes me far less excited about turning her into a guinea pig. My kids are vaccinated against other diseases. My oldest had varicella; he was born before the vaccine and like most kids caught it from a friend in preschool. I had some concerns about vaccinating the youngest with this vaccine again precisely because it is new, there is not a long track record and we don't know how long the immunity from the vaccination works. In the end I decided to vaccinate her because she has no control over whether she is exposed to wild virus and because there are very few cases in school age children now and thus the odds are that IF she were to be exposed to the virus it would be as an adult where it is decidedly more unpleasant in most cases. The same cannot be said for this new HPV vaccine. I think the manufacturers did a great job of publicity and marketing. Wonder who got paid in the Texas legislature to make this bone headed decision.

Kim

On Feb 6, 2007, at 9:23 AM, 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:
>>
>> ..
>>
>> 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
>

use when must restrict search to only the ob-gyn-l forum...
Enter search keywords:
	Returns per screen: Require all keywords: