Re: "Religious right" promotes cervical cancer, wants women to die from cervical cancer

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:55:46 -0400, "Joe S." <anon@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Once again, we see the true face of the "religious right."

We need a new wristband: WWJAWC? Who Would Jesus Afflict With Cancer?

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060611_gene_gerard_religion_cancer_science/

QUOTE

Gene Gerard: Religion Running Roughshod Over Cancer Science


Posted on Jun 11, 2006
By Gene Gerard

The Food and Drug Administration advisory panel approved a vaccine for the
human papilloma virus (HPV) last week. The vaccine appears to be 100%
effective at protecting against the most prevalent viruses that cause
cervical cancer. While public health professionals view the vaccine as
miraculous, many conservative organizations oppose it on the grounds that it
might encourage promiscuity among adolescent girls. Now that the FDA has
approved the vaccine, conservatives are already working feverishly
[http://feministing.com/archives/005183.html] to limit or even prevent its
use.

The pharmaceutical giant Merck produced the vaccine, known as Gardasil,
which will be nothing short of a lifesaver for countless women. Cervical
cancer is the second most prevalent cancer killer among women in America,
striking nearly 14,000 each year. Of those, nearly 4,000 die. Poor women and
women of color will benefit the most from the vaccine, as Latino and black
women suffer the highest rates of cervical cancer. Lower-income women
typically lack the funds and health insurance necessary to have regular
screenings for HPV.

Despite the benefits of the vaccine, conservative organizations began to
rally against it last year. One of the most vocal opponents was the Family
Research Council. The council, according to its mission statement, "promotes
the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable
society." Last October the council's president, Tony Perkins, spoke against
the vaccine. "Our concern," he said, "is that this vaccine will be marketed
to a segment of the population that should be getting a message about
abstinence. It sends the wrong message." He went on to say that he would not
vaccinate his 13-year-old daughter.

Yet another organization that promotes abstinence is the Physicians
Consortium. The head of the consortium, Dr. Hal Wallis, is also critical of
the vaccine. In his opinion
[http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/3429199D-5FE5-4795-B0E6-CD957617C160.asp],
"If you don't want to suffer these diseases, you need to abstain, and when
you find a partner, stick with that partner." The founder of the National
Abstinence Clearinghouse also opposes the vaccine. This organization was
formed "to promote the appreciation for and practice of sexual abstinence
(purity) until marriage." Leslee Unruh, the organization's founder, stated
firmly, "I personally object to vaccinating children against a disease that
is 100% preventable with proper sexual behavior."

Now that FDA approval is official, conservative organizations are
strategizing to blunt acceptance of the vaccine. Much of this effort is
directed toward the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
This committee is a part of the Centers for Disease Control, and is
responsible for establishing the classification of vaccines that the
government recommends. This recommendation prompts states to require a
particular vaccination, typically guarantees that insurance companies will
cover it and determines the level of public funding.

In 2003 President Bush's secretary of health and human services appointed a
medical doctor, Reginald Finger, to the ACIP. Until last fall, Dr. Finger
was also the medical affairs analyst for Focus on the Family, the nation's
largest and most powerful evangelical Christian organization. In an effort
to gain the support of this group, Merck has been forced to aggressively
lobby Focus. Merck has admitted holding numerous meetings with Dr. Finger at
Focus headquarters. It's troubling that a vaccine manufacturer has to be
concerned with securing the backing of a conservative Christian
organization. And Merck is likely to have an uphill battle.

Although children are required to have various vaccinations before attending
public schools, conservatives are against the ACIP recommending such a
practice for the HPV vaccine. The Christian Medical & Dental Associations is
an organization that "exists to glorify God by advancing Biblical principles
in bioethics and health to the Church and society." The group's executive
director, Dr. Gene Rudd, has stated
[http://www.cmdahome.org/index.cgi?BISKIT=343567272&CONTEXT=art&art=3241],
"While accepting HPV vaccine is morally acceptable, it should not be
mandatory."

And the Family Research Council has gone even further. While testifying
before an ACIP conference, the council's spokesman said: "Because parents
have an inherent right to be the primary educator and decision maker
regarding their children's health, we would oppose any measures to legally
require vaccination. There is no justification for any vaccination mandate
as a condition of public school attendance." And Focus on the Family issued
a formal statement declaring that it "supports widespread (universal)
availability of HPV vaccines but opposes mandatory HPV vaccinations for
entry to public school."

But in most instances, parents can't pick and choose what vaccinations they
want their children to receive in order to attend public schools. Children
are required to be vaccinated against measles, mumps, chicken pox and
various other diseases. Public health experts recommend that the HPV vaccine
be administered to children at about ages 11 or 12, before sexual activity
commences. And there's no scientifically defensible reason that it shouldn't
be universally administered.

Of course, there's the rub: The objection to the HPV vaccine isn't based on
science; rather, it comes from a biblically based squeamishness about
premarital sex.

Religious values, however, shouldn't affect FDA approval or recommendation
by the ACIP. From a public health perspective, we can't continue to allow
conservatives to depict science as a cultural bogeyman.



END QUOTE


You posted this months and months ago, and are now reposting
"as if it just happened last week"?











.

Loading