Ever since I started seeing commercials for this, I've been sick of it. All these women who are amazed and slightly outraged that no one told them that cervical cancer is caused primarily by exposure to a simple virus? But that's ok, you can get a shot and never have to worry about it. Now it's all about being One Less to suffer or to worry because if you don't get the shot, apparently you're just about guaranteed to get cervical cancer.
I heard on MPR yesterday (here's the article) that Minnesota is considering legislature to possibly mandate that all 12 year old girls will get the vaccine with their normal regimen of shots at that same age. I know it got approved by the FDA last year, but no one knows any of the long term side effects or other risks that could be associate with it, and I'm not really sure we should be enlisting every young girl in the state to find out for us. It also would create HUGE profits for the drug's manufacturer, but that's ok, I bet they could really use it. My main concern is that all these women and girls are only getting partially educated about something that doesn't necessarily require a vaccine to prevent.
Granted, I learned about cervical cancer in a very specialized way. On a medical mission trip with school we were working with several doctors, one of whom was a gynecologist. He explained that cervical cancer is one of the top killers in Peru for women, partly because of the lack of information that is provided. Just by becoming sexually active before the age of 18 immediately doubles your risk. As does having multiple partners (or partners who have had multiple partners), frequent sexual encounters, and multiple pregnancies. Now, I wonder why there are people out there thinking that mandating the vaccine send a mixed message about sexuality?
Cervical cancer is awful and has a high mortality rate, by all means we should prevent it. But why not do so with actual, complete information? Smoking increases your risk as well, you could add that into the current campaign against cigarettes. Long term oral contraceptive use also increases risk, but there's a good chance that you'll see a commercial for the new prescription birth control pill that will shorten your period in the same programming time as you'll see a "one less" ad.
All this information could be given in a 12 year old's Sex Ed class - it doesn't even have to lead to a "this is why abstinence is a good idea" message. And it's not like it's new news either. That trip that I took was almost 10 years ago. It doesn't make sense that they wouldn't have told me this when I had Sex Ed (granted that was more than 10 years ago), or why they wouldn't share it now. I'm not typically a conspiracy theorist, but this one kinda reeks of people witholding useful information for their own insidious purposes or profit.
3 comments:
Ann,
I just was with Becky and Mike this weekend and Beck was sharing the same frustration... I'll e-mail her your link!
EP
This series of shots cost $500 per person. If the average American has 1.1 kids, that's $550 a piece, or $165 billion total. Would we ever support a $165 billion campaign to immunize girls? No.
We allow certain risks all the time. The only reason people are so hellbent to force this vaccine on our kids is that this has been swept up into the sexual liberty battle.
Incidentally, I am increasingly of the persuasion that I have no desire to immunize my kids. The relationship between mercury in vaccines and autism (which nearly 1% of American kids develop now) is increasingly clear, to say nothing of other related maladies.
I'll take my chances with mumps.
I really don't mean to be antagonistic but if they came out with an AIDS/HIV vaccine would you support that being mandatory? Why or Why not? Is this a different situation and if it is how so?
I guess I see it as more of a way to eradicate a specific cause of death for some women.
Even if you stay a virgin until the night of your wedding what if your husband slipped up once before and now you've got HPV which could end your life. I would think it's safe to say, it could have been prevented.
Having this vaccine only prevents four types of HPV. It doesn't protect against HIV, Syphilis, Chlamydia, Genital Herpes, Unwanted pregnancies, Emotional distress, Being used or any other types of HPV. With all the information that's being shoved down our throats today about the dangers of sex, I would be willing to bet that this vaccine, or lack there of, would not be a deciding factor in whether or not teens are sexually promiscuous/curious/confused/misinformed/active. But if it saves some women in the future is it not worth it.
With that said I don't think it should be mandatory because that's just ridiculous.
Post a Comment