The full article can be read here --->
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cancer/gardasil.html
Gardasil
The cancer vaccine that protects against STD
My view point is more from a parental POV, so if this thread needs to be moved, I understand...
well, this part stood out to me:
Quote:
So the plan is to inoculate girls as young as possible, before they've had sex, hence the U.S. Food and Drug Administration decision to allow the drug on girls as young as nine, or when they are in Grade 4.
Social controversy
Not surprisingly, perhaps, the suggestion that grade-school aged girls be inoculated has caused a stir among social conservatives in the U.S. who argue that such a vaccine would only encourage promiscuity and a false sense of invulnerability to sexual disease.
|
Now I don't see the controversy in this. If you knew you could protect your child from a life threatening disease, wouldn't you want to, even if it mean educating them about sex maybe a little bit earlier than you intended?? And besides, they're recommending that young girls, as young as age 9 get this vaccine. At that age, you wouldn't even have to explain to your daughter what the vaccine does, just that it'll protect her from a certain type of cancer and other health issues, you don't NEED to mention that they are sexually related.
I don't understand how some parents can be so naieve and cry that providing a possibly LIFE SAVING vaccine is just not acceptable because it MAY give their young girls the wrong impression that it's safer to have unprotected sex. Let's look at the worst possible scenario: Would you rather have your daughter die at age 40 with cervical cancer, or life a full life but having had a baby at age 13? Obviously they're both undesirable outcomes, but I'd hope that the latter would be more appealing of the two.
To me, this is a similar debate to having condom dispensers in high school washrooms. Now at that age target, yes, I can somewhat see a controversy, however, I am all for providing condoms to teenagers. I can see how some teens may see it as an easy opportunity, an encouragement to have sex, but I don't think that providing them condoms will make that decision for them. I didn't have condom dispensers in my HS bathroom, but I knew where exactly to get them for free if I wanted to, I knew where I could buy them if I felt like spending the money, but that in no way influenced my decision to lose my virginty when I was a young 14. If anything, providing condoms to HS students at their discretion puts more responsibilty on the parents and school system to better sexually educate our children instead of turning a blind eye and naievelly thinking that today's youth will make the right decisions based on moral judgement. Teenagers today will do (or at least attempt) to do what they want no matter what anyone says. Wouldn't you want them to at least make an educated decision???
I just don't understand those parents who think that it's more important to protect their children and try to preserve their innocence way beyond what is realistic, rather than educate and warn of the consequences their actions could result in. If anyone here thinks otherwise, please clue me in, because I really don't see how that attitude makes any sense.