Required STD shots worry some parents

[BVS]

AUSTIN, Texas - Some conservatives and parents’ rights groups worry that requiring girls to get vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer would condone premarital sex and interfere with the way they raise their children.

By using an executive order that bypassed the Legislature, Republican Gov. Rick Perry — himself a conservative — on Friday avoided such opposition, making Texas the first state to mandate that schoolgirls get vaccinated against the virus.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16975112/wid/11915773?GT1=9033



So protection = condones?

 

[kimby]

So protection = condones?

Yeah, like sex ed = condones

 

[ShellBeThere]

I'm glad they're mandating the vaccination...
make it just like getting vaccines for measles, and the notion that vaccination is like some kind of implicit okay for sex at a young age is completely gone. HPV is transmitted by "skin to skin contact during sex", and condoms aren't so successful at preventing its transmission as it is against other STDs, and (rarely) it can be transmitted via oral sex. Basically, if a guy is infected with HPV, he can give it to his female sexual partner in any kind of contact with her genitals, even far short of intercourse. Lots and lots of people have it, it is easily transmitted, and it is the cause of a lot of cervical cancer.

Seems a no-brainer to require vaccination, especially since when the daughters of even religious conservatives who don't want their kids having sex before marriage (which, btw, seems according to recent research to *increase* risky non-coital sexual behavior, which transmits HPV as surely as coitus does...http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-18-sex-study_x.htm )
do get married and start having that sanctioned sex they will still be exposed to HPV potentially, unless the parents can vouch for the total virginity of the intended as well. Sounds like a lot of sexual police work, versus one little shot.

cheers!

 

[Liesje]

WTF?

I'm considering this vaccine (will ultimately be determined on whether my insurance will pay for it) even though I'm already married and won't get HPV from my husband. You can never be too careful. As long as there are no risks getting the vaccine, why not?

 

[bonoishot]

I didn't even know you could get a vaccine for this. Unless thats just in the US?

Like Liesje said, as long as theres no risks with having the vaccine then why not?

 

[Liesje]

Here's the CDC info on it, I'm just reading through it myself....

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm


I knew about it because there was a thread here a while back and there have been TV ad campaigns promoting the vaccine in the US. I'm going to my gyn for a yearly physical this week and was going to ask her about it.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think that his ties to Merck and that whole Women in Government thing could be problematic. I don't think the vaccine would promote having sex- especially since kids will have sex anyway (sometimes even unprotected), even with HIV risk, the pregnancy risk, etc. When it comes to something like cervical cancer, moral issues should take a back seat. Obviously we prefer that girls that young and even older don't have sex, but we also have to be realistic. With the help of good communication with their parents and healthy ideas about themselves and sex hopefully most can and will wait until they're much older than 11 or 12-ideally when they are truly ready physically and emotionally. But the ideal doesn't exist often enough.

I don't see anything wrong with parents having other health concerns about this vaccine though, there are risks with every vaccine and we don't know enough about this one yet. They can say no known side effects, but drug companies always say that.

 

[80sU2isBest]

If they're making it mandatory, will they make it free? Those vaccinations cost $300 each.

 

[martha]

If we call it what it is: A CANCER vaccine, then will these people shut up?

 

[martha]

If they're making it mandatory, will they make it free? Those vaccinations cost $300 each.

This is a good question. Some required vaccines can be obtained at free clinics. I don't know if the required hepatitis one is free though.

 

[verte76]

I don't see why there should be any concern over these shots. Conservatives don't want their kids to get cancer, do they?

 

[martha]

Conservatives don't want their kids to get cancer, do they?

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.

 

[BVS]

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.

True...

 

[redhotswami]

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.

 

[INDY500]

If we call it what it is: A CANCER vaccine, then will these people shut up?

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'.

 

[deep]

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

 

[anitram]

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.

 

[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.

 

[martha]

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.

 

[indra]

According to the CDC site Liesje provided the cost will be covered by the Vaccines For Children (VFC) for the following:

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.

 

[Lila64]

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.

 

[Liesje]

You have to be 11-26 because they're not finished testing it on adults over 26.

 

[redkat]

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.

 

[anitram]

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.

 

[Irvine511]

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]

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

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.

 

[A_Wanderer]

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?

 

[Lila64]

<<<stumbles back out of FYM

 

[BVS]

 

[A_Wanderer]

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...