Require the Shot -- Or Not?
The debate over the vaccine that guards against HPV (human papilloma virus), has been in the news for some time now since its approval last summer by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Certain strains of HPV have been linked to cervical cancer, and supporters of the vaccine see it as one way to guard young women against the deadly disease. Others fear the vaccine may come with unknown risks. The buzz surrounding the vaccine, marketed as Gardasil, remains at a constant simmer throughout the iVillage community, particularly due to legislation in Texas (and more recently in Virginia) that would require the vaccine for all sixth-grade girls. Last week the Texas legislature fought back against the strict mandate, voting to make the shots voluntary. Since this hot-button issue criss-crosses the boundaries of politics, health and parenting, our members naturally have a lot to say about it.
From the Feminism Today board:
"I think it is wrong to require girls to have this vaccine. I think it is great to have available, but I don't think it should be mandatory. I also find it ironic that men will decide what happens to women."
"I don't really understand why people wouldn't want their daughters vaccinated against this. I read in another message board a woman saying that if boys were vaccinated it would speed up the process of eliminating the problem and if so it should happen."
Meanwhile on the Vaccination Debate board, members are concerned with the possible unknown side effects down the line:
"This vaccine has been incorrectly touted as the "cervical cancer prevention" vaccine instead of HPV prevention vaccine. What gets me is this from the insert:GARDASIL has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity."
"First--I need to say that I am very pro-vaccination. With that said, if I had a daughter at the age to be vaccinated for HPV I wouldn't do it at this time."
iVillage Wellness hosts a board with a wealth of information on Herpes, HPV & Other STDs and reactions were mixed to the news of Texas Governor Rick Perry signing legislation to mandate the vaccine for 6th grade girls:
"I think the governor has stepped out of bounds. This decision should be up to the parents of the girls."
"No one wants to hear about someone developing cancer or other problems, especially if available measures can counter it. This mandate is a great start to better ensure the health of the generation coming up!"
"I think the vaccination is great for girls and I do not think that it will promote sexual behavior."
More reaction comes from the regional boards, who just may be dealing with legislation of their own, members of the Tennessee board are weighing the pros and cons. One iVillager sums up her feelings, and many others seem to share the same sentiment:
"I love the fact it can help prevent cancer. What has me so worried is that it is so new, we have no idea what some of health issues or side affects that may arise from this. I believe that it needs to be out longer before anything is pushed too hard on this. I have had family members die from cancer and myself have had abnormal paps. But still even if I was in the age bracket I wouldn't get (it) without enough studies being done on it. In the past few years there has been so many new meds recalled for the health risks they pose. I would like to wait and see if any arise from this new vaccine."
What are your thoughts on the HPV vaccine and the legislation that's tied to it? Do the benefits outweigh the risks here? Or is this a case of big drug companies pushing their products through political channels? I'll admit, as the mother of a 9-year-old girl, I'm wary and undecided -- what about you?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Require the Shot -- Or Not?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://beehive.ivillage.com/system/mt-tb.cgi/935
It's too new and hasn't been tested widely enough to make it a REQUIRED vaccination. I do think they're fine by RECOMMENDING it, and think that if there were sufficient testing, I'd vaccinate my daughters when they're of age. But as it stands now, I wouldn't do it, and I'd fight against a government that would say I HAVE to vaccinate them.
NO way in heck will my daughter get this shot. Too many stories out there about people who tried new drugs/shots only to end up with heart problems or infertility issues. (Depo Provera comes to mind, I have my own personal feelings on that one.) A governor has no business whatsoever telling everyone what the young girls in his state should get. I smell greed in that decision. How about teaching girls to stay safe and practice abstinence, among other ways to reduce your risk. Plus, look at the stats on that drug. They're not too impressive. I won't risk my child's health for a small chance this would help her at all. Big Brother, stay out of my personal business. Then again, maybe you want to come in and pay for all the medical bills this could cost us later on? Oh that's right, that won't happen, or there wouldn't be thousands of children suffering from autism due to mercury in mandatory vaccinations, ignored by the government and insurance providers entirely.
I agree that it is WAY to new to be required to get vaccinated. I don't believe it will promote sex. It amongst all others... education is the best medicine.
I just don't get this one. There isn't enough research, enough patients of it. Its just too new.
Hammie, I agree - if we should REQUIRE anything, how about SEX ED courses that teach the basics of sexual reproduction and how to be smart and safe about sex, rather than allowing 14yos to walk around thinking that they can't get pregnant their first time having sex or that they can't get STDs from giving oral sex.
I'm thinking the vacciene's too new to be "required". There could be some bugs to work out still, so at the moment, and until the FDA has totally approved that it's safe, checked out allergies that people may have to it; i.e. give it some time, any woman that wants to try it should have the freedom to.
If it turns out that the HPV shots are good, and have minimal side effects/allergic reactions, it should DEFINATELY be made required.
It's not going to tell your daughter "ok, go have sex now".
You figure, there are other shots you're required to have (like Hepititis) that can be sexually transmitted too.
And I agree with Steph- better Sex Ed is a REAL must.
I have just returned from getting the first vaccine, and I am feeling pretty good about this decision. I am 25 years old, healthy and in a monogomous relationship, but after finding out more and more about this cancer preventative vaccine, the more I feel at peace with it. I did not have any allergic reaction to it, except some minimal pain at the injection site.
I plan to have the next vaccine, sometimes in July.
I think that the positive benefits of this drug is far better and safer than what could happen. I do not like to live my life with too many what if's. If I have children, I would want them to be vaccinated too.
Since HPV is not a communicable disease, I do not ever think it should be mandatory. That really goes against what I believe vaccine madates should be for, protecting all people, not just the vaccinated person.
Sexually active females usually don't get the virus by themselves. If females have to get the vaccine then their counterparts should have mandatory testing - for any std. End of story