Fundies oppose HPV Vaccinations - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

kutulu · 10-31-2005, 09:17 AM

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...type=printable

Quote:

Washington -- A new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer has set up a clash between health advocates who want to use the shots aggressively to prevent thousands of malignancies and social conservatives who say immunizing teen-agers could encourage sexual activity.

Although the vaccine will not become available until next year at the earliest, activists on both sides have begun maneuvering to influence how widely the immunizations will be employed.

Groups working to reduce the toll of the cancer are eagerly awaiting the vaccine and want it to become part of the standard roster of shots that children, especially girls, receive just before puberty.

Because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory, citing fears that it could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage. Several leading groups that promote abstinence are meeting this week to formulate official policies on the vaccine.

Officials from the companies developing the shots -- Merck & Co. and GlaxoSmithKline -- have been meeting with advocacy groups to try to assuage their concerns.

The jockeying reflects the growing influence social conservatives, who had long felt overlooked by Washington, have gained on a broad spectrum of policy issues under the Bush administration. In this case, a former member of the conservative group Focus on the Family serves on the federal panel that is playing a pivotal role in deciding how the vaccine is used.

"What the Bush administration has done has taken this coterie of people and put them into very influential positions in Washington," said James Morone Jr., a professor of political science at Brown University. "And it's having an effect in debates like this."

The vaccine protects women against strains of a ubiquitous germ called the human papilloma virus. Although many strains of the virus are innocuous, some can cause cancerous lesions on the cervix (the outer end of the uterus), making them the primary cause of this cancer in the United States. Cervical cancer strikes more than 10,000 U.S. women each year, killing more than 3,700.

The vaccine appears to be virtually 100 percent effective against two of the most common cancer-causing HPV strains. Merck, whose vaccine is further along, plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration by the end of the year for approval to sell the shots.

Exactly how the vaccine is used will be largely determined by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a panel of experts assembled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. The panel issues widely followed guidelines, including recommendations for childhood vaccines that become the basis for vaccination requirements set by public schools.

Officials of both companies noted that research indicates the best age to vaccinate would be just before puberty to make sure children are protected before they become sexually active. The vaccine would probably be targeted primarily at girls but could also be used on boys to limit the spread of the virus.

"I would like to see it that if you don't have your HPV vaccine, you can't start high school," said Juan Carlos Felix of the University of Southern California, who leads the National Cervical Cancer Coalition's medical advisory panel.

At the ACIP meeting last week, panel members heard presentations about the pros and cons of vaccinating girls at various ages. A survey of 294 pediatricians presented at the meeting found that more than half were worried that parents of female patients might refuse the vaccine, and 11 percent of the doctors said they thought vaccinating against a sexually transmitted disease "may encourage risky sexual behavior in my adolescent patients."

Conservative groups say they welcome the vaccine as an important public health tool but oppose making it mandatory.

"Some people have raised the issue of whether this vaccine may be sending an overall message to teen-agers that, 'We expect you to be sexually active,' " said Reginald Finger, a doctor trained in public health who served as a medical analyst for Focus on the Family before being appointed to the ACIP in 2003.

"There are people who sense that it could cause people to feel like sexual behaviors are safer if they are vaccinated and may lead to more sexual behavior because they feel safe," said Finger, emphasizing he does not endorse that position and is withholding judgment until the issue comes before the vaccine policy panel for a formal recommendation.

Conservative medical groups have been fielding calls from concerned parents and organizations, officials said.

"I've talked to some who have said, 'This is going to sabotage our abstinence message,' " said Gene Rudd, associate executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations. But Rudd said most people change their minds once they learn more, adding he would probably want his children immunized. Rudd, however, draws the line at making the vaccine mandatory.

"Parents should have the choice. There are those who would say, 'We can provide a better, healthier alternative than the vaccine, and that is to teach abstinence,' " Rudd said.

The council plans to meet Wednesday to discuss the issue. On the same day, the Medical Institute for Sexual Health in Austin, Texas, which advises conservative groups on sexuality and health issues, is convening a one-day meeting to develop a position statement.

Alan Kaye, executive director of the National Cervical Cancer Coalition, likened the vaccine to wearing a seat belt.

"Just because you wear a seat belt doesn't mean you're seeking out an accident," Kaye said.

This doesn't surprise me one bit. These people are so wrapped in their own ideology that they have no problem with people dying from what will now be a prevantable disease. Just wait, someday we will have a vaccine against HIV and the same people will oppose it.

Jinn · 10-31-2005, 09:36 AM

It's unfortunate that religious zealots opposing anything that they think could increase sexual activity had become so mainstream that I'm not surprised either. I don't even have anything additional to add, because it's like .."Yea, so? Overtly (and overly) religious people do dumb shit all the time.."

Jinn · 10-31-2005, 09:40 AM

OK so I lied, after re-reading the article I did have something to add:

Quote:

Because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory, citing fears that it could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage. Several leading groups that promote abstinence are meeting this week to formulate official policies on the vaccine.

The way this is phrased, it sounds like fundamentalists think that sexually transmitted diseases are God's way of killing the sinners who have sex before marriage. I'd never really thought about it that way, but if there IS a God who punishes, I could believe it.

What is the vaccine, then? Satan?

stevo · 10-31-2005, 09:48 AM

I'm in favor of any vaccine that reduces disease and has the potential to prevent cancer. I don't know that it should be a mandatory vaccine though, since you aren't going to spread HPV by sneazing on the person next to you, but it should definately be available to people who believe they may be at risk for the diesase.

Jinn · 10-31-2005, 09:56 AM

I understand the concern "I dont want to take that vaccine, I dont have sex.." however, making it optional allows the religious right to demonize it into uselessness. "If you take the vaccine, then you must be a slut or a whore..." If it's mandatory (with medical exceptions) then everyone can be protected without the labels game.

EDIT: You can also get HPV without having sex.

stevo · 10-31-2005, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

I understand the concern "I dont want to take that vaccine, I dont have sex.." however, making it optional allows the religious right to demonize it into uselessness. "If you take the vaccine, then you must be a slut or a whore..." If it's mandatory (with medical exceptions) then everyone can be protected without the labels game.

EDIT: You can also get HPV without having sex.

I don't think making it optional allows anyone to demonize it into uselessness. I think there are plenty of people who ignore what the zealots have to say and could care less if someone behind a pulpit calls them a whore. But I'm not sure that it should be mandatory, that every girl or boy needs to be vaccinated before they enter high-school. I still feel people should be allowed the choice. Its not like polio or TB. By not getting vaccinated you aren't putting other people in danger.

kutulu · 10-31-2005, 10:17 AM

To be honest, there really are no 'required' vaccines. If you don't want your kid vaccinated, you don't have to. My wife got her initial vaccines when she was a baby but never got any others.

I'm pretty sure that Christian Scientists don't get vaccinated. They don't believe in advanced medicine. They are the ones who, when they break a leg, don't get it treated. Instead they pray for God to fix it. Amish people might feel the same.

Forcing vaccinations would be a potential separation of Church and State issue. It would be wise to add this vaccine to the list of vaccines kids get before puberty but I wouldn't want to force anyone to get it. My problem is only with those who would attempt to suppress this vaccination by undermineing the general population.

stevo · 10-31-2005, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

It would be wise to add this vaccine to the list of vaccines kids get before puberty but I wouldn't want to force anyone to get it. My problem is only with those who would attempt to suppress this vaccination by undermineing the general population.

It would be most definatly wise to offer it to everyone before puberty. And I don't understand the people who would attempt to supress the vaccine, and I don't really try to either.

samcol · 10-31-2005, 10:42 AM

I definetly don't support mandatory vaccines. If someone wants to voluntarily get a vaccine that's fine by me, but I don't want anymore and I don't care to pay for anyone elses especially if it is aimed to preventing the consequences of high risk behavior.

After reading about vaccines, sometimes the cure really is worse than the disease so I am kinda skeptical about jumping on the vaccine for everything bandwagon especially when it's not totally neccessary.

Seaver · 10-31-2005, 10:42 AM

Quote:

To be honest, there really are no 'required' vaccines. If you don't want your kid vaccinated, you don't have to. My wife got her initial vaccines when she was a baby but never got any others

For admission to most colleges it is.

My opinion is that while I'm a Christian and Conservative.. these people carry the same weight with me as those people hoping for a US loss in Iraq just cause it'll make Bush look bad (I.E. none).

politicophile · 10-31-2005, 10:57 AM

There is something a little strange about mandating that all children be vaccinated against an STD. If the HPV shot were available right now, I certainly wouldn't take it because I am not at risk for contracting that illness. I totally understand why parents don't want to have their children effectively forced to receive this vaccination.

Let me take it a step further: if a vaccine preventing the transmission of HIV came out tomorrow, I wouldn't get the shot.

Now let's not use the religious beliefs of some who oppose mandatory HPV vaccination as evidence that there is not credible argument against the mandate.

Willravel · 10-31-2005, 11:11 AM

I'm so mad I could just go shag a bunch of right wing extreemists. Idiology should NEVER hurt, oppress, or kill. If it does, it is no longer an idiolgy. An Ideology is something that serves needs. No group needs to hurt, oppress, or kill.

FoolThemAll · 10-31-2005, 11:48 AM

Depends on what you would include in the categories of 'hurt' and 'oppress'. And killing is always a potential group need, unless the group in question has pacifist tendencies.

The thread title is significantly misleading. I went in assuming that I'd disagree with the fundies, seeing as how HPV vaccinations are a good thing. Turns out I agree with the fundies: it shouldn't be mandatory.

kutulu · 10-31-2005, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

The thread title is significantly misleading. I went in assuming that I'd disagree with the fundies, seeing as how HPV vaccinations are a good thing. Turns out I agree with the fundies: it shouldn't be mandatory.

I agree with them also, but that isn't the point of the matter. The point is that they use retarded logic to oppose it and then want to make their retarded logic public policy. You could compare it to the war in Iraq. There are many who agree with the cause, but not the selling of the war by Bush.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Let me take it a step further: if a vaccine preventing the transmission of HIV came out tomorrow, I wouldn't get the shot.

Just as it is with HIV, 'immoral' behavior isn't the only way to get infected. Of course, the fundies don't let that part out.

FoolThemAll · 10-31-2005, 12:28 PM

It doesn't bother me all that much when the right things are done for bad reasons. It bothers me a whole hell of a lot less than when the wrong things are done for good reasons.

10-31-2005, 09:36 AM	#2 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	It's unfortunate that religious zealots opposing anything that they think could increase sexual activity had become so mainstream that I'm not surprised either. I don't even have anything additional to add, because it's like .."Yea, so? Overtly (and overly) religious people do dumb shit all the time.." __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

10-31-2005, 09:48 AM	#4 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	I'm in favor of any vaccine that reduces disease and has the potential to prevent cancer. I don't know that it should be a mandatory vaccine though, since you aren't going to spread HPV by sneazing on the person next to you, but it should definately be available to people who believe they may be at risk for the diesase. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

10-31-2005, 09:56 AM	#5 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	I understand the concern "I dont want to take that vaccine, I dont have sex.." however, making it optional allows the religious right to demonize it into uselessness. "If you take the vaccine, then you must be a slut or a whore..." If it's mandatory (with medical exceptions) then everyone can be protected without the labels game. EDIT: You can also get HPV without having sex. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

10-31-2005, 10:57 AM	#11 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	There is something a little strange about mandating that all children be vaccinated against an STD. If the HPV shot were available right now, I certainly wouldn't take it because I am not at risk for contracting that illness. I totally understand why parents don't want to have their children effectively forced to receive this vaccination. Let me take it a step further: if a vaccine preventing the transmission of HIV came out tomorrow, I wouldn't get the shot. Now let's not use the religious beliefs of some who oppose mandatory HPV vaccination as evidence that there is not credible argument against the mandate. __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

10-31-2005, 11:48 AM	#13 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	Depends on what you would include in the categories of 'hurt' and 'oppress'. And killing is always a potential group need, unless the group in question has pacifist tendencies. The thread title is significantly misleading. I went in assuming that I'd disagree with the fundies, seeing as how HPV vaccinations are a good thing. Turns out I agree with the fundies: it shouldn't be mandatory. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

10-31-2005, 10:17 AM	#7 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	To be honest, there really are no 'required' vaccines. If you don't want your kid vaccinated, you don't have to. My wife got her initial vaccines when she was a baby but never got any others. I'm pretty sure that Christian Scientists don't get vaccinated. They don't believe in advanced medicine. They are the ones who, when they break a leg, don't get it treated. Instead they pray for God to fix it. Amish people might feel the same. Forcing vaccinations would be a potential separation of Church and State issue. It would be wise to add this vaccine to the list of vaccines kids get before puberty but I wouldn't want to force anyone to get it. My problem is only with those who would attempt to suppress this vaccination by undermineing the general population.

10-31-2005, 10:42 AM	#9 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	I definetly don't support mandatory vaccines. If someone wants to voluntarily get a vaccine that's fine by me, but I don't want anymore and I don't care to pay for anyone elses especially if it is aimed to preventing the consequences of high risk behavior. After reading about vaccines, sometimes the cure really is worse than the disease so I am kinda skeptical about jumping on the vaccine for everything bandwagon especially when it's not totally neccessary.

10-31-2005, 11:11 AM	#12 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'm so mad I could just go shag a bunch of right wing extreemists. Idiology should NEVER hurt, oppress, or kill. If it does, it is no longer an idiolgy. An Ideology is something that serves needs. No group needs to hurt, oppress, or kill.

10-31-2005, 12:28 PM	#15 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	It doesn't bother me all that much when the right things are done for bad reasons. It bothers me a whole hell of a lot less than when the wrong things are done for good reasons. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.