Required STD shots worry some parents - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-05-2007, 07:35 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
If they're making it mandatory, will they make it free? Those vaccinations cost $300 each.
medicare is paying for quality of life
erectile dysfunction meds
for our seniors



so, watch out for grandpa
if you have not been vaccinated
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 07:38 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 01:41 PM
Anybody who would refuse to immunize their daughter for this reason is stupid. There is no point to even humor these people or attempt to be polite anymore. It is a public health issue, it is a health care issue. Period.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 07:42 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
redhotswami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Waiting for this madness to end.
Posts: 5,846
Local Time: 01:41 PM
this isn't really new though. there are certain religious groups that have for a long time now been opposed to certain medical procedures. i recall and old colleague of mine who actually had documentation alerting EMTs not to give her blood. regardless of whether or not it would save her life, to her it was the better choice to let herself die in such a case than to take somebody else's blood. and some people claim DNR too.

i will perhaps never understand. but it is interesting to me to see such convictions that prefer death to a simple medical procedure.
__________________
redhotswami is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 07:44 PM   #19
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 10:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


When encountering opinions or beliefs that differ from yours, how do you differentiate between those warranting a simple response of "shut up," like this one, and those requiring your more pejorative retort of "shut the f@*k up."

Just wonderin'.
Good question. I guess it depends how sick of their shit I am.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 07:44 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 02:41 PM
According to the CDC site Liesje provided the cost will be covered by the Vaccines For Children (VFC) for the following:

Quote:
The VFC program provides free vaccines to children and teens under 19 years of age, who are either uninsured, Medicaid-eligible, American Indian, or Alaska Native.
So it doesn't appear the cost should be too much of a problem.

I would be a bit concerned by the very newness of the vaccine if it was either me or my kid getting it, but overall I think it's a positive step.

And the people who equate equate this shot with condoning sexual activity equate everything with sexual activity and should be required to seek professional help for their problem.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 07:51 PM   #21
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Lila64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ♥Set List Lane♥
Posts: 52,710
Local Time: 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra
According to the CDC site Liesje provided the cost will be covered by the Vaccines For Children (VFC) for the following:



So it doesn't appear the cost should be too much of a problem.

I would be a bit concerned by the very newness of the vaccine if it was either me or my kid getting it, but overall I think it's a positive step.

And the people who equate equate this shot with condoning sexual activity equate everything with sexual activity and should be required to seek professional help for their problem.
I wonder if my medical insurance will cover this. When my daughter had her physical last year, they gave us brochures to review. The shot is not mandatory, at least not in Calif. as of August 2006 as far as I'm aware. But I believe it is recommended. We just didn't have enough information at the time and didn't want to decide on the spot, especially with the newness of the vaccine as indra mentioned. And isn't this vaccine for those under a certain age? I guess I should breakout that material again (referring to Lies inquiry about it)

Maddy's got some time, I think.
__________________
Lila64 is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 07:58 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 01:41 PM
You have to be 11-26 because they're not finished testing it on adults over 26.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 07:58 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
redkat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: racing to the waterside
Posts: 19,620
Local Time: 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lila64

And isn't this vaccine for those under a certain age? I guess I should breakout that material again (referring to Lies inquiry about it)

Maddy's got some time, I think.
I was just asking my dr about it. I think the age was 9-26

from planned parenthood:
. HPV is so common that about three out of four people have HPV at some point in their lives. But most people who have it don't know it.

Although most HPV infections go away within eight to 13 months, some will not. HPV infections that do not go away can "hide" in the body for years and not be detected. That's why it is impossible to determine exactly when people became infected, how long they've been infected, or who passed the infection to them.

If you have HPV, you should not be ashamed or afraid. Most people who have ever had sex have HPV at some point in their lives.

so unless you will only ever have sex with a virgin you are at risk.
__________________
redkat is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 08:13 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by redhotswami
this isn't really new though. there are certain religious groups that have for a long time now been opposed to certain medical procedures. i recall and old colleague of mine who actually had documentation alerting EMTs not to give her blood. regardless of whether or not it would save her life, to her it was the better choice to let herself die in such a case than to take somebody else's blood. and some people claim DNR too.

i will perhaps never understand. but it is interesting to me to see such convictions that prefer death to a simple medical procedure.
But this is an entirely different situation.

Refusing medical treatment on religious grounds (which the courts have often disregarded in cases of minors anyway) is distinguishable from refusing medical treatment because you believe it may somehow alter your child's sense of morality.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 08:21 PM   #25
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by redkat
so unless you will only ever have sex with a virgin you are at risk.


and herein lies "the rationale" for objecting.

i'm sorry, but this is something like, say, Creationism that isn't deserving of a response other than "STFU" because it's so blatantly anti-science, anti-health, anti-fact, that to dignify it with some sort of PC-esque, "well, we're all entitled to our beliefs" is to give it more credit than it deserves.

has anyone else noticed how the sides have flip-flopped? how conservatives are now the sentimentalists, the doe-eyed utopians, the idealists, the ones who will defend another's viewpoint (with the caveat that it be based in a religious text of some sort) and that clear, cold, hard facts are suspicious and unthinking, unfeeling things that can't possibly embrace our godly nature and goals?

i mean, this applies to foreign policy as well. where once liberals thought that multi-ethnic teenagers could sip Coke on a hillside and sing and racism would end, just look at the utopian, we-can-all-hold-hands-and-a-democracy-we-shall-make that got us into Iraq in the first place. how different is this from if-our-kids-just-get-the-right-messages-they'll-be-as-virginal-as-Mary-was?

not different at all.

[/rant]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 09:40 PM   #26
Blue Crack Distributor
 
LarryMullen's POPAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'll be up with the sun, I'm not coming down...
Posts: 53,698
Local Time: 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Well, we are talking about a cancer that only affects women, aren't we?

Do you suppose that if this were a prostate cancer vaccine (and prostate cancer was contracted the same way), we'd even be discussing how appropriate or expensive it is?

Just asking.

Exactly. And, notice how we never seem to be worried about young males going out and getting it on with every girl they see. If they do that, they're studs.

I think it's amazing they've found this vaccine, and the more girls who get it, the better. If parents talk to their daughters beforehand, and stress the "you're less likely to get cancer" than the "hey guess what? go get freaky this weekend, you've earned it; you've had the vaccine!" factor, then maybe we wouldn't be so concerned in the first place.

Love the double standard that still, and always will, exist in this society.
__________________
LarryMullen's POPAngel is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 09:59 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




and herein lies "the rationale" for objecting.

i'm sorry, but this is something like, say, Creationism that isn't deserving of a response other than "STFU" because it's so blatantly anti-science, anti-health, anti-fact, that to dignify it with some sort of PC-esque, "well, we're all entitled to our beliefs" is to give it more credit than it deserves.

has anyone else noticed how the sides have flip-flopped? how conservatives are now the sentimentalists, the doe-eyed utopians, the idealists, the ones who will defend another's viewpoint (with the caveat that it be based in a religious text of some sort) and that clear, cold, hard facts are suspicious and unthinking, unfeeling things that can't possibly embrace our godly nature and goals?

i mean, this applies to foreign policy as well. where once liberals thought that multi-ethnic teenagers could sip Coke on a hillside and sing and racism would end, just look at the utopian, we-can-all-hold-hands-and-a-democracy-we-shall-make that got us into Iraq in the first place. how different is this from if-our-kids-just-get-the-right-messages-they'll-be-as-virginal-as-Mary-was?

not different at all.

[/rant]
Firstly look at the green movement for anti-reason based sentimentalism, secondly ask yourself why liberal internationalism has been abandoned in favour for palaeocon realism?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 10:02 PM   #28
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Lila64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ♥Set List Lane♥
Posts: 52,710
Local Time: 11:41 AM


<<<stumbles back out of FYM
__________________
Lila64 is offline  
Old 02-05-2007, 10:03 PM   #29
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,698
Local Time: 12:41 PM
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-05-2007, 10:05 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by redhotswami
this isn't really new though. there are certain religious groups that have for a long time now been opposed to certain medical procedures. i recall and old colleague of mine who actually had documentation alerting EMTs not to give her blood. regardless of whether or not it would save her life, to her it was the better choice to let herself die in such a case than to take somebody else's blood. and some people claim DNR too.

i will perhaps never understand. but it is interesting to me to see such convictions that prefer death to a simple medical procedure.
I don't have any problem with the religious killing themselves, their children and other people on the other hand...
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com