Some conservative groups think the cervical cancer vaccine will promote teenage sex. “What the Bush administration has done has taken this coterie of people and put them into very influential positions in Washington. And it’s having an effect in debates like this.” (via FARK.com)

Comments

Anonymous
Wow. What an unbiased article from SF. Conservative groups, eh? Which ones again? Oh wait, the article doesn’t mention any specifically. Nor does it offer any public statements from presumably conservative groups.
The only connection made is that the only two detractors they quoted happened to be linked with known conservative groups. There’s some rock solid journalism.
Well, as a conservative I speak only for myself, but seriously, I really could not care less. If you want to go get yourself shot up with a vaccine, have at. If it actually works, even better.
Will it encourage teens to “engage in high risk sex.” Maybe, maybe not. I doubt teenagers are having less sex (compared to when I’m not sure), but then we’ve been down this road of “safer sex” so many times it’s getting silly.
So you now have a vaccine for HPV, great. Unfortunately, the leading cause of STD transfer and “unwanted” pregnancy is stupidity. Call me when you have a cure for that.
Anonymous
I too am a “conservative”. Kids are horny little bastards. There’s nothing you can do outside of chastity belts to stop them from heaving sex.
Eye Doc
I guess I’m another conservative who thinks that article is ridiculous. First of all, conservatives are not monolitihic and all ideologically identical. Second, I doubt kids refrain from sex because they’re worried about cervical cancer.
gasman
Making sex more or less dangerous does little to change the frequency of people having multiple partners.
Before AIDS there was genital herpes, which people fretted about, then copulated.
AIDS again made people worry, but the frequency of young people having multiple partners by high school did not differ.
And all along there was hepatitis B which because of media neglect never got the attention it deserved. At every point during the two decades of the AIDS epidemic, hepatitis has been a greater source of illness and death than AIDS. It just happened to affect heterosexuals and was less newsworthy.
It has never been PC to state that cervical cancer was largely acquired as as sexually transmitted disease, even though it has been clear for decades that some sexually transmitted infectious agent was responsible for upwards of 80% of all cervical cancer. To say so got one shouted down by all sorts of groups; I’m not certain why so many felt threatened by this truth. Now of course with an effective vaccination, the elephant in the room is that cervical cancer is a sexually transmitted condition, with the specific causitive agent being the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV).
Once vaccinated I doubt that people will rush out and copulate in the streets. Those who are prudent because of personal moores will still be prudent for the same reason. Those who are prudent because of infectious risk will realize that there are pleanty of infections to inquire both known (gonorrhea, syphillus, chlamydia are quite alive and well), as well as those yet unknown.
The tough sell on this vaccine is that it must be given before infection, that is a group of kids at an age where most (say 95% or more) have not had any sexual contact (oral or genital) which means pediatricians are going to have to discuss this with the parents of twelve year olds.
A curious question is does one vaccinate the boys. This is the first vaccination for which it could be considered to vaccinate people not at risk from the disease, done only for the beneficence of others. From a public health standpoint it makes complete sence to vaccinate the boys because they are the asymptomatic vector. Even as a libertarian myself, I recognize there are innumerable benefits to sharing in the common goals of an organized society. If I can protect society at large through accepting some small cost and risk, and that societal benefit is sufficient (in this case potentially 10s of thousands of future cases of cancer) then I have a duty to accept a vaccination (or live chastely, which would have the same effect).
So role up your sleeves kiddos, one more shot in the regimen of 15 or so you get by age 12 anyway.
Anonymous
It may be the cost of the vaccine that may determine whether it will be widely used. If the goverment or health insurance companies will pay for it, then it may find widespread use. But if it costs more than a $100 a shot and the patients or parents will have to pay for it, very few will want to have it.
Chloe
Thinking of this… If some people opt out of the immunization, they’d be the only ones getting HPV.
I could see it now… Average parents warning their daughters, “Stay away from Timmy, his parents are conservative Christians, so he probably has HPV.”
My only concern would be that certain conservative groups could could keep poor people from getting this vaccine, not just for their children, but for themselves.
HPV can be transmitted even with a condom. And even not having sex before marriage… Unless I find a virgin man to marry, I’d like to have this vaccine myself. (And at my age, unless I was going to get really pervy, any man I marry will likely not be a virgin.)

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels

Subscribe

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels