Skip to main content

Vaccinate Your Pre-teen for STDs Now?

According to an article I read the other day in Time magazine, it seems that in the US there is a push to vaccinate girls aged 11 and 12 (and even as young as 9) against HPV - the human papillomavirus, which is spread mainly through sex and two strains of which are believed to cause 70% of cervical cancer (I've heard the figure is as high as 90%).

To do this they're using a new drug, Gardasil, which was approved by the FDA last June. Merck, who make the drug, were trying to lobby states to require the vaccine for schools but have since stopped.

It must say something about our parenting that we take it for granted that 11 and 12 year old girls are going to be sexually active so, hey, we have to give them a vaccine to protect them against diseases they might catch while having sexual intercourse. Isn't that kind of like giving your pre-teen your consent? "Well, hey, you're going to have sex when you're 12 anyway, so we may as well protect you now

Whatever happened to instilling your values in them and bringing them up right? Or does the popular media (music videos, movies, magazines, TV) have so much influence now that that's not possible?

Comments

  1. There is a technical issue to do with the HPV vaccine that you seem to have missed. The vaccine is ineffective if it is administered after HPV is contracted.

    Therefore its being given before they become sexually active so as to be as effective as possible.

    Or put it another way why would you wait until it is less effective before administering it?

    If you consider that it is sending a wrong message then I would think that you would be better of managing that by education rather than increasing their chances of dying of cervical cancer later in life.

    Sb

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hmmm, like so many socialist policies though, they're not targeting the root cause (pun intended).

    Do you think there would be a need for such a drug at all if children were taught to respect themselves and others and to abstain from sex until marriage? Yes, that does sound old fashioned, I know.

    Socialists don't like ideas like that though. They think anybody should be able to do whatever they want as long as it's within the limits of the law (and if it's not they'll try to change the law so it is).

    These "freedoms" that they like us to have require putting on sticking-plaster after sticking-plaster to try and fix the problems that these freedoms cause.

    eg, it goes something like this -

    1. People should be able to have sex with whom they want, when they want. If feels really pleasurable, so why should we have to wait until marriage or even a committed relationship to feel that pleasure?
    We want to have it whenever we want.

    2. There is a problem though - having sex can get women pregnant, so lets invent a drug to give to women that messes with their bodies so that they don't get pregnant; oh, and condoms - lots and lots of condoms.

    3. Problem. Condoms don't always work and neither does The Pill. So lets make abortion legal, then the woman can get rid of the baby if she gets pregnant.

    4. Another problem. Condoms and other birth control methods don't stop certain HPVs most of the time, and these HPVs cause most of the cervical cancer in women. Solution, give vaccines to our little girls (at least every 5 years) to protect them.

    What's next? I posit that some other problem will arise from the drug, or it will need some other drug to fix it or whatever.

    None of the above is needed if children are taught that sex is meant for inside a committed relationship with a lifelong partner (preferably marriage).

    I was talking to a guy from a health agency one time, and he said that AIDS would pretty much disappear within a few years if everyone adopted this. If might be in infected blood supplies for a little while, but eventually AIDS would work it's way out of the world's communities.

    Something to think about.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No problems from me. It's like a kid about to run across the road without looking; you grab the little bugger first and then make with the lecture.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm with you, Fletch, on this one. What's horrifying about it all is the push to try and make the vaccines compulsory. Who knows what effects these vaccines will have on a developing child's body over the long term.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ok, jc, but what if you said to your kid, "now I don't want you running across the street Ok? But just in case you do, I'm giving you this neon reflector vest so that cars will be able to see you more easily".

    Do you think he is more likely to run across if you plainly tell him NO, or if you've given him a vest just in case he might?

    In the one case you're establishing your authority, which is total; in the other case you're saying no but giving him another option to fall back on just in case he disobeys you - you're almost saying by your actions that you expect he will disobey and that if he does disobey, he has to do such-and-such.

    In other words, your actions appear to say that have given your approval no matter what he does.

    Am I making sense? :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. No you are not making sense (at least to me!) fletcher.

    The child has the choice to run across the road. You can explain to it about cars and the risks to cross the road. And as it gets older and it understands more and more and its judgment improves it can chose when to cross the road. The child may chose not to cross the road or it may cross several times. However it will understand that if it does chose to cross the road the jacket will improve its chances of not being struck.

    Hence to the child you have shown your authority and judgment.

    The HPV vaccine seems to provide the best protection to my daughters that is available. Even if they chose to save sex for marriage it will still protect them from a husband who breaks the marriage vows and brings the HPV virus into the relationship.

    For the record I have offered to pay for the HPV vaccine for both of my daughters and left the actual choice of whether to proceed up to them

    Sb

    ReplyDelete
  7. Interesting..
    Sb, you are from NZ? They are offering it here? Or are you from overseas? Forgive me if you've mentioned it before, but I'm not sure.

    I'm afraid we will still have to disagree on the subject, although I can understand you wanting to do what is the best for your daughters and to see them safe.

    I still think it is a bit too much when the company that produces it was trying (and might succeed another time?) to make the vaccine mandatory to girls in schools.
    Twelve year olds aren't stupid; they'll know what it's for and what it's supposed to protect against.

    If I was administered the drug, then perhaps I would not be so careful in how promiscuous I was? I guess I'm trying to say that if the fear of disease is there then one might be a little more careful of what one does. Not being a 12 year old girl though, it's perhaps not for me to say how they think :)

    I still think that the age of 12 is too early to be pushing any idea of sex. Can you understand what I mean? It's like saying to a 12 year old that it's best you not smoke yet, but here is a jab that will stop you getting lung cancer if you decide to..

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Ok, jc, but what if you said to your kid, "now I don't want you running across the street Ok? But just in case you do, I'm giving you this neon reflector vest so that cars will be able to see you more easily".

    Do you think he is more likely to run across if you plainly tell him NO, or if you've given him a vest just in case he might?"

    Nope. To cut to the vaccine.. I'd get it administered, and be very clear that it was a health matter that would assist our daughters in later life.

    It's a one off health action, but the business of morals and values is an ongoing story and shouldn't be confused with practicalities.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  9. From Auckland (is there anything more to NZ?) I understand that its available via special order via your GP for approx $460.

    "I still think that the age of 12 is too early to be pushing any idea of sex" I don't think anybody is pushing that - you are taking a much to hard slant on the message.

    The medics want to get it into the girls at a time that it will have the most chance to be successful. What age would you chose?

    I think the way to handle it is to remove the sex message and promote it as a anti-cancer shot. The message should be that this is nothing to do with sex but about protecting you against cancer when you are grown up. Presented correctly there should not be to much of a problem IMHO!

    Their kids - if you don't give them the right message they will get the wrong one! the younger one mentioned that her mates thought that you could not get pregnant if you had sex standing up! Ahhhhhhh!

    Sb

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's great that you guys are pioneering the way to safer vaccines. We really do need to increase the sample sizes thus far, especially since many doctors do not follow up adverse reactions, or attribute them to other factors, such is the medical professions faith in vaccine technology.

    Great stuff. Your daughters are very brave and to be commended for their potential sacrifice.

    The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), the nation's leading vaccine safety and informed consent advocacy organization, is urging state legislatures to investigate the safety and cost of mandating Merck's HPV vaccine (GARDASIL) for all pre-adolescent girls before introducing legislation amending state vaccine laws. In an analysis of reports made to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) since the CDC's July 2006 universal use recommendation for all young girls, NVIC found reports of loss of consciousness, seizures, joint pain and Guillain-Barre Syndrome. In a separate evaluation of costs for young girls being vaccinated in private pediatrician offices, NVIC discovered that parents living in the Washington, D.C. area will be paying between $500 and $900 to have their daughters receive three doses of GARDASIL.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ZenTiger do you have children? I have taken decisions that have affected their safety and security everyday that they have lived. I will continue to do so as that is a fathers duty. I will support them in their lives and their choices as long as I am able to do so.

    I do not need advice from a sanctimonious prick to do that thank god!


    Sb

    ReplyDelete
  12. Fair comment SB. If you are making an informed decision, based on what you feel best, then I totally respect that.

    My comment was really to indicate the often unassumed/unquantified dangers. But it was put rudely. Sorry.

    Yes, I have children BTW.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ok - thanks for that.

    I am actually concerned about how tested the vaccine is, however in general the testing information that I have seen suggests that the risks of problems with the vaccine are less than the risk from the cancer. When you are dealing with a large population of people you will always get adverse reactions from a number of them (and unfortunate some of those reactions will be lethal). I would be amazed if there is not a single drug or vaccine that has not killed somebody.Its just the way life works.

    Given the age of my girls (16 & 21) how long can we wait to make the decision? Not making a decision is also a risk.

    Life is a matter of balancing and managing risk.

    Sb

    ReplyDelete
  14. Don't be relying on condoms to protect you, that is for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Don't be relying on condoms to protect you, that is for sure."

    Well, as the young girl said, "Gramps, you don't need a condom at your age", to which the old chap replied, "Maybe not, but I do love the smell of burning rubber".

    JC

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.