theycallmelisa

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:






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.

Intense1

Sorry, but this issue is a family decision one.

First, the vaccine is against HPV only, not against cervical cancer in its entirity. A woman can contract cervical cancer without ever having the HPV, and shame on the AMA for pushing this vaccine as an innoculation against cervical cancer. Large percentages of women have had cervical cancer without ever having experienced HPV.

Just because HPV often leads to cervical cancer does not make it the sole cause of cervical cancer.

Second, it is absolutely true and proven - the only way to guard against HPV is abstinence. Sorry, don't care for anyone's "kids will be kids" type arguments, but all other methods of BC and prevention might eventually fail.

Except abstinence. That won't fail, I'll guarantee you. If you don't do it, you won't get it. Any of it. (diseases, pregnancy)

Values are taught in families - that's where you'll see the most abstinence arguments. So when you think to castigate parents for not being on board for their young girls being forced to receive this vaccine, realise that perhaps these parents want to make this decision themselves.

__________________
(none yet, still thinkin')

Lizra

This seemed weird to me.....I got those warts....way back in the stone age over 30 years ago.....the nurse at the Army hospital burned them off with some nasty chemical solution. ugh!
Anyway.....big whoop. Now my daughter (who is a sweet young virgin) is concerned about this because of the commercial barrage....afraid she is going to get cancer from something "out there". It just seems like "drug company wanting to make uber $$" malarky to me.....but I suppose I'm rather jaded by now..... What other inoculations have they added....isn't there a new menegitis one, along with a chicken pox one.....I wonder, does that prevent shingles?

__________________
Happy atheist

analog

Don't get up in arms- no one is forcing your child to get it, stay calm.

That's true, you can get cervical cancer without HPV, but I've never seen anywhere that the AMA has "pushed" this vaccine to prevent cervical cancer- just that it innoculates against HPV, which often DOES lead to cervical cancer.

I don't know of a single case where someone has insisted otherwise. However, your take on the vaccine is rather like not using an umbrella when it rains, because rain is not the only way one can get wet- and therefore umbrellas must be useless.

That's great- but you're a parent, and the rest of us live in reality. Sorry, but I don't care for your "kids will obey every command I give them, including not to have sex" argument. A lot of kids, no matter how you raise them, are going to have sex. When more parents realize that, better decisions will be made to safeguard kids. Yours is the same argument against teaching kids about condoms, because doing so will apparently make them promiscuous. Nonsense. Proper education (along with good parenting) has always, and will always, be the #1 method of prevention of pregnancy and spread of disease- not telling them "oh just don't do it". I live in reality, and I have to help solve problems in reality, not in a fantasy land where teens don't have sex just because you ask them not to.

I say to everyone who makes such an argument: Welcome to reality, 2006... People have been having premarital sex for quite a while now, and you're not going to put an end to it. You're just not. Teaching abstinence only does not work. Period. It's been tried for decades, and it has NEVER stuck. Many of them are going to have sex whether you like it or not, and you need to be the responsible parent and teach them how to protect themselves. Telling them that protecting themselves is through "just not doing it" will not work, and that is not "teaching" them anything. Knowledge is power. Give them that power.

Again, I have no idea where you're getting this "forced" idea. Saying they suggest something happens at a certain age is not a mandate, it's a suggestion. Hence the word "suggest".

Also, values are not universal. Many people who live here in reality take the time to educate their children on safe sex, and the consequences of unsafe sex. While it is true that there are some things you can get even while being safe, proper education is the start.

Teaching abstinence only is setting yourself up for failure. They need to be taught of the consequences of their actions, how to protect themselves. These days, here in reality, preaching abstinence only is an archaic gesture. I would also mention that preaching abstinence only has lead to a trend of teens engaging in anal sex, in order to preserve virginity, because it "doesn't count". That's what you get when you substitute EDUCATION for your own misguided desires to tell them to simply not do it.

Education, people. Education.

Kaliena

<b> SERIOUS KUDOS </b> Very well said, my thoughts EXACTLY.

__________________
~Beware the waffle~

MageB420666

Wow, someone needs to look stuff up or my highschool's sex ed class needs to be updated....

Last I heard HPV was the cause of 95% of all cases of cervical cancer.

And HPV can be spread by large area skin contact via sweat. Usually this occurs during sex, but can occur during other situations as well, so abstinance can fail, nothing is an absolute.

__________________
Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

kutulu

Thanks analog. You said it much more nicely than I could have.

Live in reality, people. Kids have been having premarital sex during high school years for a LONG LONG time.

Yakk

It isn't a matter of "Condoms" vs "Abstinance". You cannot force your kid to use Condoms or use Abstinance. All you can do is educate them.

It is "Teaching Condoms and Abstinance" vs "Teaching Abstinance" that you have the option about. Claims that "Abstinance is 100% effective" are bullshit -- the technique of Abstinance has a failure rate, namely the chance that someone following it fails and has sex.

Most Condom failure is user error. A small fraction is manufacturing error. So error-free Condom use using perfectly manufactured Condoms is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy! *_*

The real value that matters: How effective is "Teaching Abstinance and nothing else" at preventing STDs?

Note that, currently, 75% of adult Americans have been infected with HPV. Yes, you probably have been infected with HPV. And HPV is often symptomless. So if your daughter never has sex until she gets married, but the man she marries has had sex with someone before he met your daughter, your daughter still can catch HPV!

Unless you believe your daughter deserves to die from cancer if she disobeys you, or marries someone who has ever had sex with anyone before...

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

little_tippler

Analog you said it. Nothing to add, very well put. Education is definitely key - "knowledge is power" and all that.

__________________
Whether we write or speak or do but look
We are ever unapparent. What we are
Cannot be transfused into word or book.
Our soul from us is infinitely far.
However much we give our thoughts the will
To be our soul and gesture it abroad,
Our hearts are incommunicable still.
In what we show ourselves we are ignored.
The abyss from soul to soul cannot be bridged
By any skill of thought or trick of seeming.
Unto our very selves we are abridged
When we would utter to our thought our being.
We are our dreams of ourselves, souls by gleams,
And each to each other dreams of others' dreams.

Fernando Pessoa, 1918

basmoq

Great job analog and Yakk, very well stated. I am a biologist and have done my senior seminar presentation on HPV. The simple and plain fact is that most Americans have HPV and many recieved it when married. The fact that the ~10 varieties of the virus that DIRECTLY CAUSE cervical cancer can be prevented is astounding. The fact that someone would not want to be protected is disgusting... It's like saying you don't want to be immunized for HBV because you are not a doctor and don't plan on coming in contact with another person's blood. The Abstinence people should grow up and smell reality.

__________________
"There's someone out there for everyone - even if you need
a pickaxe, a compass, and night goggles to find them."

Nimetic

I dont' see any controversy there either.

This vaccine is being introduced to all high school kids in AU next year. The issue mentioned above was not even raised. Only the cost/effectiveness of the drug - and govt caved in very quickly.

Ultimately the same issue covers German measles and hepatitis also. All girls here get German measles vaccination at age er, about 10 I think (in school). Does this mean that they'll charge out and get pregnant? I don't think so. It's simply a precaution for the future.

But maybe the issue is made more complicated elsewhere by advertising?

Destrox

Damn Analog... I was gonna give my two cents on that area, but you nailed it so hard and perfect there is just nothing left.

As for the OP:

I, too, fail to see any negatives to this vaccine. It prevents a FATAL disease, its safe, and by no means does it encourage sex.

Magazines and TV are what they need to be focusing their misguided anger towards if anything. Not a LIFE SAVING drug.....

Sheesh...

__________________
You bore me.... next.

Dilbert1234567

It’s like a police officer not wearing a bullet proof vest on a raid because it only stops some bullets.

Get your daughter immunized, and then tell her DONT HAVE SEX!

And sorry to be a buzz kill, abstinence does not stop rape.

And just so you all know, the first study done on the drug (3 doses) was (drum roll please) 100% effective against the 2 strains targeted that cause 70% of the infections of HPV and 97% effective with just one dose.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...a134004D82.DTL

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Lizra

Well I'll tell daughter to go ahead and get the shot then....and add "wondering when I'll get cervical cancer" to my lengthy anxiety list .....cervical cancer is the one that pap smears don't detect right? Whoopee!

__________________
Happy atheist

Yakk

Btw, minor correction.

HPV rarely leads to Cervical Cancer. 75% of adult americans have been exposed to HPV.

Cervical cancer is almost always caused by HPV. ~90% of cervical cancers are caused by HPV, as far as medical science can tell.

Cervical cancer isn't a "top 3" cancer, but it kills more people than cars do. An HPV vaccine is about the same as making your daughter completely and utterly immune to car crashes, risk wise.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

ASU2003

So why doesn't this vaccine work in guys? Is it only preventing the formation of cancer on the cervix, so being a guy with HPV does nothing? But I would still think that you would try and inoculate as many people as possible to quickly get the outbreak under control if guys can pass the virus to others.

And, does it work in older women? Does it cure people who already have HPV?

MSD

It does, they just aren't ready to tell us to get it yet. Once a lot of girls and women have gotten their vaccines, then we (who will not develop any symptoms from HPV) will get the reccommendation. It's kind of like vaccinating doctors, soldiers, and old people first because they're more at risk than others.

Yes to the first, no to the second, but it will prevent infection with strains of HPV that they have not caught.

ASU2003

So why wouldn't they offer it to virgin guys that are starting to get into relationships? If both partners actually got tested before fooling around, I would hope that the doctor would give the guy a shot to prevent him from being a carrier if the girl (or guy) has HPV.

Lizra

Well good news then! I was wondering when the mass extinction was gonna hit...

__________________
Happy atheist

Sultana

If they can't even test men for HPV, how could they vaccinate against it? How could they know it works?

__________________
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath.
At night, the ice weasels come." -

Matt Groening

My goal? To fulfill my potential.

cellophanedeity

I'm so happy that they've come up with this vaccine! There's not really a good reason not to get it unless you're allergic to the ingredients.

MSD

It would take a long-ass time to verify, but if it works in human females against a virus, there's no reason to question its effectiveness in human males who can carry the same virus and whose immune systems are equally able to fight it.

Intense1

Okie dokie, here we go.

What child? I wasn't aware I had a child - nope, Analog, not a parent, just someone who has worked with other people's kids for the past 20 years in ministry, both christian and non christian. I've counseled kids about sex when their own parents hadn't done so, dealt with pregnant teens, worked with incensed parents about their sexually active teens, though these parents had never spoken to their kids about sex.

Yep, my bad - I typed this after watching one of those commercials that unequivically (sp?) stated that this new vaccine guaranteed against cervical cancer, and I attributed it to the AMA, even though it was a drug company piece. I have seen an AMA-backed commercial though. But I was out of line on this one, so again, my bad on the AMA.

My beef with these commericals and the general "anti cancer" push on this vaccine is that there are truly those who have cervical cancer but don't have HPV, as evidenced by a dear friend of mine. Fortunately, she was able to have treatment for it and is now cancer free, as are many who have never had HPV but have had cervical cancer.

Yes, I know the stats about HPV causing cervical cancer, but it's not the only cause of cervical cancer!!! And to advertise a vaccine that guards against only two strains of HPV to be a "vaccine against cervical cancer", is more than a bit misleading.

What if young girls who get this vaccine decide that they are immune to cervical cancer, therefore, they don't need Pap smears when they become sexually active? Pap smears are the main guard against cervical cancer becoming a life-stealer.

Wow - I've seen it all now. So often on this forum I've seen so many posts that say, in effect, "if you're not ready to deal with the consequenses of sex, then don't have it", and this by a varied lot of posters, mostly on the Sexuality thread. So if adults are being counseled not to have sex if they're not ready, why are you saying that kids should be free to do so if they wish? They're kids, for God's sake. They don't know their own hearts, minds or bodies, so what makes them ready to go for it? Why shouldn't they be encouraged to abstain from sex and be guided by their parents in this way?

You seem to be saying that kids cannot be taught to reign in their desires, that they're only going to be driven by instincts, so hey, just give them condoms and tell them to be safe. How sad that we think so little of them to think they can't rise above and exercise a little SELF CONTROL. That's what sets us apart from animals, isn't it? Animals are driven by instinct to mate, but humans have self control....

As far as abstinence, I happen to agree with Planned Parenthood on this: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/bir...abstinence.htm

As a side note, back in the mid 90's I read a survey done by Coca-cola of church kids in the UK, and it said that 96 percent of the kids surveyed wanted to learn about sex from their parents, but 98 percent of church parents wanted someone else to teach their kids about sex. (yes it's a strange survey for Coke, but they do all kinds of surveys)

I don't doubt this at all - If I could give you a link I would, but the only like I have is my notes that are in Thailand right now.

Yep, education is the key, but when you're educating kids, don't leave out the fact that they can choose to not have sex if they wish, and that it would be absolutely fail-safe in guarding against disease and pregnancy.

Yes, abstinence is failsafe in practice, if it's not just belief. Just like a belief that condoms will keep you safe as long as you remember to put them on or as long as they don't break.

__________________
(none yet, still thinkin')

Dilbert1234567

Huh? Education is the key, instead of saying 'SEX IS BAD!' educate that pap smears are still necessary, and that it does not make you immune to cancer. The only people that are going to think they are immune are the people who are not educated about sex, and the vaccine.

I’d rather have more, educated kids having sex, then less, uneducated kids having sex any day. They should be encouraged not to have sex, but if they do, to be safe, if the kids are scared so that they wont get protection, we have unprotected kids having sex. But yes, most (if not all) teens are not ready for sex; however, if they still chose too, I’d rather they do it with protection, then with out, instead of saying its abstinence or nothing, it should be abstinence or a condom.

So do I:
Abstinence is NOT 100% safe. Rape still happens, and the vaccine protects rape victims from HPV, abstinence does not.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

snowy

No one should have sex if they are not prepared to deal with the consequences. Subsequently, that means teens--the important disclaimer here is that if teens are educated and prepared to deal with the consequences of their actions, then that is the best their parents can do. However, that also means that teaching them that abstinence is the only solution is not viable or practical.

Tell me, did you wait until marriage for sex? No. Most people do not. According to my human sexuality textbook, about 8% of modern American couples wait until marriage for sex. Studies done by the CDC show that most women don't wait past 24 to engage in intercourse, and those who wait past that point are more than likely not to engage in intercourse at all. So that would show that most who do wait for marriage for sex do marry early.

Therefore, it is our public responsibility to teach children about sex. As young as possible. Yes, that's right, I said as young as possible. Even now I know parents who are laying the foundations with their four year olds. What else are they supposed to do when a younger sibling comes along? Say that the stork brought it? I don't think so. No, most kids I know who are that young and have siblings know the proper terminology and have the foundation for learning later what sex is about.

But overall, it is, in my mind, a process that parents should be taking charge of, and not schools. Schools should not be responsible for teaching children about sex. Even my cousin says that she can remember how you could tell the kids who knew and the kids who didn't apart in her health class in 7th grade--that's 12 years old, by the way. In my opinion, that division shouldn't be happening as much as it does--parents should be taking the obligation for teaching their children what they need to know about sex, and if that includes abstinence, then that is what they need to know. The school should be under no obligation to teach a curriculum that emphasizes abstinence. They are a secular institution, and largely the subscription to the idea of abstinence is a religious one--therefore they should stay out of it, and teach what is most likely to keep people safe.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Lizra

So Pap's do detect cancer of the cervix! I guess I was thinking of ovarian cancer as the hard to detect till it's too late one..the one Gilda Radner died of...ok...nevermind...carry on.

__________________
Happy atheist

Yakk

How does she know she never had HPV?

I'm curious. HPV can be asymtomatic....

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Sultana

I have to say that most young girls (young people, in general) already feel impervious to cancer. I'd imagine that any young ladies educated and motivated enough to get paps would be smart enough to continue getting them as needed.

But honestly, the main reason young women get paps is because it's required to continue their birth control Rx.

Now, I thought I heard in the advertisements that this vaccine protects against all the cancer-causing strains...am I misunderstanding?

It's still going to take an entire generation or two to completely weed out HPV. Maybe at that point, paps won't be needed.

__________________
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath.
At night, the ice weasels come." -

Matt Groening

My goal? To fulfill my potential.

hobo

if they just bundle it in with all the other vaccines kids get it and give it to them when they're 5 then you don't even have to tell them what they're getting, so you can avoid the sex ed at an early age.