Re: Lost in the country......

ptooner wrote:
Some states (not California yet, although it is being discussed) have already ruled that as a condition for PS attendance female students must take the HPV vaccine. I would need to double check, but I believe Texas is one of them. The New York Times had written editorials stating how it would be a good idea for NY. HPV is ONLY transmitted through sexual contact, and I personally find it appalling that any state could mandate the taking of this new and relatively untested vaccine to my daughter. Big Nanny government is, in my never so humble opinion, encroaching deeply into my paternal rights.

Glen
I'm with you on the first part of this post. Let's look a little closer at the second half. I believe the situation is that the HPV vaccine only works on children WHO HAVE NEVER HAD A SEXUAL ENCOUNTER. It's purpose is to prevent Cervical Cancer, a particularly virulent and deadly disease. When I was a kid in grammar school we had to take several innoculations every year. I remember that Small Pox, tetanus, Typhus, and various others were among them. We really didn't give it much thought at the time, although I believe the purpose was to keep us from spreading disease to other folks who were required to attend the school. I realise that Cervical cancer isn't contagious, but I'm still not sure I'd be opposed to the vaccine. I have a grand-daughter who is 14. Should she have it? I think so.

Gerry


I see your point, but I can't say I agree with you. Vaccinations are important for illnesses such as smallpox (in my day), whooping cough, measles. etc.: illnesses that can be spread through casual contact. Since in this case this isn't a threat, IMHO it should be the call of the parent who best knows his/her child. All vaccines carry a risk. In most cases the risk is too small to be considered numerically significant when compared to the potential harm to one's self and to others in the community. The risk is always greater in a newer, less field-tested vaccine.


Dr. George Sawaya, an epidemiologist and obstetrician-gynecologist at University of California, San Francisco also points out:

". . . studies in 11- and 12-year-old girls need to be conducted because that's the group this vaccine is recommended for. While the studies published today showed no side effects, longer-term studies are needed to make certain there aren't safety concerns."

In this study, Sawaya also saw one safety problem that raised a question.

"There was an occurrence of a rare vulvar cancer in one vaccinated woman in these studies. It's quite rare but is thought to be associated with HPV. Therefore, that requires more investigation, more study and certainly a more cautious approach."

Cautious because, in this study, there was one rare cancer among 2,500 women when that type of cancer typically occurs in one in every 100,000 women.

Philosophically, I tend to agree with Dr. Hal Wallis, an OB-GYN, who is with the conservative Physicians Consortium:

"This isn't as much about morality as it is about good medicine. If you don't want to suffer these diseases, you need to abstain, and when you find a partner, stick with that partner."

As for my own feelings, I would not try to tell another parent what to do. A decision has to be made on a case by case basis. I strongly believe that this should be a parental decision, not a governmental one. The decision should, however, be an informed and thoughtful one.

Glen

.

Relevant Pages
Loading