Re: A Vaccine to Save =?iso-8859-1?b?V29tZW6Scw==?= Lives
From: Jamie (ajfields@pine-net.com)
Tue Feb 6 07:23:17 2007
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
|
|
