=?utf-8?Q?Re:_A_Vaccine_to_Save_WomenÂ’s_Lives?
From: acmidwife@netscape.net
Tue Feb 6 18:33:22 2007
I agree with Jamie, Kim, and Anna. Mandating a vaccine is serious business. Something stinks in this situation. Time will tell. At this point, I am 100% opposed to a mandate.
ac mase cnm
-----Original Message-----
From: annam@uic.edu
To: ob-gyn-l@dns.obgyn.net
Sent: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: A Vaccine to Save WomenÂ’s Lives
I'm with you Kim and Jamie. I am totally against mandating this vaccine for anyone until it's been around awhile. I am definitely against mandating it for 4th-grade girls.
Anna Meenan, MD
>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
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading s=
________________________________________________________________________
pam and email virus protection.
