Cervical Cancer Drug

[JediSkipdogg]

I'm just curious as to what others think on this.


From: Bill would require Ky. girls to receive cancer vaccine - NewsChannel 6 WPSD (http://www.wpsdtv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=9f66717b-ae8a-4e49-93fc-4ff676ffe34e)
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) - State representative Kathy Stein knows a controversial bill that would require middle-school girls to be vaccinated against a virus that causes cervical cancer will be met with opposition.

But the Lexington-based Democrat says if the state doesn't make the vaccination mandatory it could cost the state's young women down the road.

The vaccination would help girls fight the threat of cervical cancer, which claims nearly four-thousand lives a year.

Critics of the bill, however, say it would prevent parents from making health decisions for their children.

Martin Cothran, a spokesman for the Family Foundation of Kentucky, said the immunization is better promoted through education.
Associated Press






I think Texas (I could be wrong on the state) already has this new requirement. My question is what do people think about forcing young girls to get this drug which also helps to prevent many STDs?

Personally, I'm stuck in the middle. While I think the gov't forcing vacinations is bad, I think if people were safer and more honest we wouldn't need to do this. I know there are millions of teenage girls out there that don't think twice about sleeping around. And when they do, they don't tell their partner about any STDs they may have, or they might not even know they have them. Yes, the same can be said for guys (but that's another topic since we don't have a drug for that yet.) If the girls would think twice about sleeping around it would be good for the STD side. But now this drug can actually give them more of a reason to sleep around since they have another added protection.

So what are others thoughts on this? The cancer benefit is outstanding though, and I highly doubt anyone can argue that (but I'm sure someone on here will, lol.)

[cheryl]

I am all for it. Cause some parents cannot control there young girls for numerous reasons hmmmmmmm......me for instance, I never ever got a std, I was atleast smart and make the guy or whatever wear protection, but there were times when I got comfortable with the same guy and didn't. I had a good mom, but didn't have the best father figure for a long time. The gov't can't control parenting..........they can only inform, and step in when it is abusive obviously, so yea, they should inforce it but I wish they had more studies down the road to make 100% sure the vaccination is safe. Children already or young teens already think they are invincible, condoms are handed out, free clinics where a teen doesn't have to let there parents know, sex education, so obviously teens already feel like they are free to choose, I don't think this would make it any different. It is the parents responsibility to keep talking to there teens and what not.......and only pray that they make the right decisions, So I am all for the vaccine.

Cheryl

[grace girl]

I'm not convinced it's been tested enough, and I strongly dislike the thought of a generation of young girls being the proving ground for it. If they prove it safe over the long term, then it's a great advance.
I don't agree at ALL with them making it legally required. I don't think that the government should have a say in what I choose to do medically speaking. I realize that it's a complicated issue, that the government (i.e. us taxpayers) end up paying out quite a bit for people who contract various diseases through irresponsible actions, so perhaps they think they're preventing something long term with this sort of thing.
But I personally don't want them telling me that I HAVE to take any shot or drug. People need to be responsible and part of being responsible is making descisions for your own life.
I'm not one of those people who screams "big brother" every time they make another law like this, but I do feel that they are getting their fingers more and more into our personal lives, and I don't agree with it at all.
A legally required shot isn't going to fix the problem. It's just yet another bandaid. They keep throwing sex education and condoms and now vaccinations at this problem and it isn't changing anything or fixing anything. You can't legislate morality, and through their actions it's actually becoming a whole lot simpler to be immoral.

[princesslinda]

I agree that the government should "butt-out" when it comes to our decisions medically speaking.

I do think it is great that there is a vaccine that can help in the prevention of cervical cancer. Do I think it should be given young girls....i'm not quite sure how I feel about this.

On one hand, working in the medical field, we see so many young girls/women who have cervical cancer or at very least the HPV virus. It's unreal how young some of the girls are. It would be nice if this were something we didn't have to contend with in young girls, but times are much different than when I was a teenager...and are unlikely to change.

We have also seen cases where a women developed HPV while in what she THOUGHT was a totally monogamous relationship with her spouse...and now she is suffering the consequences..in this type situation, I think the vaccination would have been a great benefit.

I can see both pros and cons to it and am certainly glad I don't have a 12 year old that I have to decide for.

[Keezheekoni]

This vaccine hasn't been tested. My pediatrician and I agree that we won't give it to our teen girls because who knows what will happen in 3 years...if they find some horrible side effect of the vaccine. Much like when they first came out with the RSV vaccine for kids, back in 98. The FDA recalled the RSV vaccine because it wasn't protecting kids, and it was causing deaths in some children.

No thanks. I'll wait until it's been out for quite a while before I subject my kids to a vaccine.

[duck]

Doesn't this assume these girls will all be sexually active, thereby increasing their risk of exposure to HPV? And isn't that a broad assumption? I am more anti-vaccine than pro-vaccine as many of you know, and not always because of the technology or the research behind the vaccine, but sometimes because of the mindset of the lawmakers who push the drugs. What are the risks to females who are not sexually active or completely abstinent? :hmmmm: I have a buddy who is completely, 100% anti-vaccine, and he always says when they finally create a vaccine for AIDS, "they" will try and make it mandatory for infants to get the vaccine--infants who run virtually no risk of getting AIDS, but who are the most efficient, complacent humans to subject to vaccines, even when unnecessary. This HPV vaccine is starting to bear that thinking out...In the UK, cervical cancer accounts for 2% of all cancers in women. In the USA I read less than 4000 women die a year from cervical cancer, with 11000+ diagnosed annually--I haven't read how that breaks down in the broader cancer mortality and diagnosis in the USA. So am I wrong in thinking this is not an epidemic, that once again it is another thing for "them" to make us fear?

(I'm not trying to downplay cancer, I can be swayed on this issue. It's just immediately, I don't see the reason for legislation FORCING women to do this)

[princesslinda]

Duck: I totally agree with what you're saying in relation to young girls receiving this vaccine.

I'm wondering, however, if it wouldn't be a good idea for someone to receive this vaccine around the time they become sexually active. Even if a young girl were celibate until the time of her marriage, the young man she marries may not have been, and could thereby infect her with HPV. I work as a transcriptionist in a urology practice, and we see many, many men (some as young as 14!) who have HPV resulting in genital warts. These boys/men when they marry, will expose their wives to this problem as well. Many times, men have no symptoms, yet have HPV and their wives end up with problems.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next year or so...and what the long-term results will be.

[jen_slc]

I think this is a great advancement. The testing issue though, makes me hesitate. Obviously for FDA to approve it and ACIP to recommend it, the vaccine has had to have gone through stringent testing.. but at the same time, the time period between approval and mandatory vaccination does seem a bit short.

A legally required shot isn't going to fix the problem. It's just yet another bandaid. They keep throwing sex education and condoms and now vaccinations at this problem and it isn't changing anything or fixing anything. You can't legislate morality, and through their actions it's actually becoming a whole lot simpler to be immoralIt may sound that way, but how else can you fix a problem that, so far, nothing else has seemed to work? I am all for sex ed, etc, but it's just not out there like it needs to be for education to really make a dent, thanks to this administration. Whether or not you think this is a morality issue, kids are having sex. And at earlier ages. The vaccine may make them think they are invincible and 'woo hoo' I'm gonna go have sex now!' but at the same thing has been said about sex ed too... and it has been shown that that is not the case at all. If kids are going to have sex, they will do it. Vaccine or not. This vaccine will only 'make it easier' to them if the education does not come alongside it, hand in hand. That is absolutely imperative.

Do I think it should be given young girls....i'm not quite sure how I feel about thisYoung girls need to have it, BEFORE they become sexually active - that's the reason why (if age is what concerns you). And young girls are having sex at pretty young ages - that's not going to change any time soon!

Doesn't this assume these girls will all be sexually active, thereby increasing their risk of exposure to HPV? And isn't that a broad assumption?Yup, this does assume these girls will be sexually active, but I don't think its a broad assumption at all. I agree that if a girl is going to remain abstinent, then why bother with the vaccine? But let's face it, the huge majority of the population does not. This is just another tool in our toolbox. I think safety nets are a good idea, PROVIDED the safety net is "safe," and like I already mentioned, that part I still hesitate on. And ok, so it's not one of the big cancer killers, but why does that matter? If we could reduce disease by significant strides, why wouldn't we?

It's a difficult position... I freely admit I am a proponent of (most) required childhood vaccinations... precisely because they are for infectious diseases that spread like wildfire in school settings. HPV doesn't really fit that... or might it??? I think it just might, considering that most women carry HPV. The effects just aren't visible until years later.

[dgrilli]

Twisted morality is so mainstream that it would be inconceivable to be even be speaking about such things just twenty years ago.

I have two daughters and they are taught the Torah and the Prophets. They are also taught that eligible suitors are of like mind.

These times are now getting bad and will even be getting worse.

So the best advise is teach and rear you young with the knowledge of instruction from our creator and they will not stray when older.

Heartache and Strife seem to be the way of the world and the above advise will fall on deaf ears of those who do not know what I have just said.

Soon my opinions such as these will be costing me my life but so be it.

So come quickley
Baruch haba baShem YHWH
Blessed is the One Who comes in the Name YHWH

[tanyatype1]

I don't think that this assumes that girl's are going to become sexually active any earlier than they would have otherwise! Even if a young woman waits until marriage to have her first sexual experience, this vaccination will protect her from some cancers (as well as some STD's that her husband could have and not even know). My doctor told me that men can carry the virus that causes these cancers and they would have no idea! And ya know what? All of our daughters are going to end up having sex eventually! And regardless of their age at that time, this vaccine will offer protection that they will be thankful for! When you're 80 and your daughter's 50, and she tells you that she's dying from a preventable form of cancer, trust me, you're not going to be thinking about how young she was when she first had sex - you're going to be wishing that you'd gotten her the vaccination. Well, that's my feelings anyway.

[Fenway]

I don't think the government should mandate this vaccine, but I do think that parents should make sure their daughters receive it.

40 years ago, when I was working on a GYN unit at the hospital, I saw many women diagnosed with Cervical Cancer. Lots of them were young - under 40. I'm quite sure that the majority of these younger women had the cancer 2° to the HPV. There were no tests for the virus back then. It was only known that cervical cancer tended to appear in women who had sex early and often.

Say what you will about abstinence, kids are going to bend to peer pressure at some point. And kids think they are invincible, nothing bad will every happen to them. So kids should be protected. If I had a young daughter right now, I would get her vaccinated.

[duck]

I hate linking outside to interesting articles, but this article pretty much sums up some of my fears: Basically, Merck is leaning on States to make this vaccine mandatory. And if you think they are doing it for noble reasons, I have a bridge in Arizona to sell you:

Drugmaker Assists In Pushing for Mandate For HPV Vaccination - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021001279_pf.html)

[pinkytricia]

Geez...Why does everything seem to start in Texas.....

I don't have any girls but if I did I wouldn't make them get vaccinated....
I'm the type ..why put extra junk in me..... Just like with the flu shot .... You don't know if you are going to get that same strain of flu...

I would probably just do what my parents did to me ....
Put the fear of GOD into them.....lol........
Girls keep their legs closed and Boys keep everything zipped up.!
Like grandma says: "you are going to go Blind or your wiennie is going to fall off"..!!!

Good luck to the parents that have girls....

[tanyatype1]

I'll definately be getting my girls vaccinated because if I can do something to protect them against cervical cancer (even a tiny bit) then I'll do it. Thoughts on sex aside. I've still got a few years to go though!

[Keezheekoni]

I'm not anti-vax as much as some of my peers are (those who cloth diaper, those who don't circumcise their boys unless for religious reasons, those who breastfeed until the child decides to wean - sometimes upwards of 4 years, those who try to live a very gentle discipline way). I have quite a few friends who blame the MMR vaccine on their child's autism, which they are constantly sending out articles about how the link is there, but then a lot of people find articles that disprove the link, etc. Thimerisol in vaccines leading to mercury poisoning and having yet another link to autism... I could go on.

I've always been pro-vaccines that have been proven over time. Take the HiB vaccine. This vaccine has been out for over 30 years, yet it was not on the required vaccine list until just about 10 years ago, if that...I remember my son and daughter (17 and 15 now) not having to get them in order to enter kindergarten, but having to get them before entering 6th grade. Anyhow, 25 years ago my brother contracted HiB, spinal meningitis while we were on vacation over Christmas, visiting family. He was only 11 months old, so not yet due for that vaccine. However, he contracted it from a child who had it and was old enough to have had the vaccine but his parents had opted out of that one. My brother almost died. His fever was 107.4 for 17 days. He had to relearn how to walk and babble. He had to relearn how to eat. He has no brain injury other than getting ADD, which we still don't know whether it's attributed to his brain frying or not.

My point is that yes, I believe in vaccinating my kids. However, this vaccine hasn't been out long enough to know what the effects of it will be in 3-5 years or more. I do have a 15 year-old daughter. Her pediatrician and I do not believe that she should get it because of its not being "proven" yet.

I also recognize that children succumb to peer pressure. I started having sex at an early age, I had my first child a month after I turned 17. Luckily, my daughter and I have an open relationship where she's discussed with me her opinions on teenage pregnancy, etc. She wants to go to USC, doesn't want to have something else to take care of...etc. So, she asked me if she could be put on birth control. Her dad's side of the family has ovarian cancer, my side has clotting disorder. We, with her Gyn, decided to let her get onto Depo Provera. Her Gyn also told her that it was up to her if she wanted the vaccine, though since it's not been out long enough, she recommended against it. If my daughter decides to become sexually active, she also knows that he doesn't really love you if he won't put on a coat...LOL

I hope that my daughter doesn't contract HPV. I've been lucky I guess...I had multiple partners as a teen and never contracted it, all of my Paps have been normal. If she does and comes to me when she's 50 and dying of cervical cancer, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. I will probably be mad at myself, but I will also remember that at this time the vaccine is unproven, so I feel good with my decision.

[whimper]

I don't think that this assumes that girl's are going to become sexually active any earlier than they would have otherwise! Even if a young woman waits until marriage to have her first sexual experience, this vaccination will protect her from some cancers (as well as some STD's that her husband could have and not even know). My doctor told me that men can carry the virus that causes these cancers and they would have no idea! And ya know what? All of our daughters are going to end up having sex eventually! And regardless of their age at that time, this vaccine will offer protection that they will be thankful for! When you're 80 and your daughter's 50, and she tells you that she's dying from a preventable form of cancer, trust me, you're not going to be thinking about how young she was when she first had sex - you're going to be wishing that you'd gotten her the vaccination. Well, that's my feelings anyway.

Don't have any kids but I'm with you on that!

[duck]

Another article from the Post on vaccine issues.


Intestinal Woes, Vaccine May Be Linked

Associated Press
Wednesday, February 14, 2007; A10

The Food and Drug Administration warned yesterday of potentially life-threatening twisting of the intestines in infants vaccinated against a virus that is the leading cause of early-childhood diarrhea.

The condition, called intussusception, is the same that led to the withdrawal of the first rotavirus vaccine eight years ago.

The FDA said it was unknown whether the recently approved vaccine, called RotaTeq, caused the 28 new cases of the condition, which also can occur spontaneously. Indeed, the reports don't exceed the numbers expected to occur naturally each year -- the "background rate," the FDA said.

"It looks like this is the natural background rate that we are seeing," said Michelle G. Goveia, medical director for pediatric medical affairs at Merck, which makes the vaccine.

In yesterday's public health notification, the FDA said it wanted to encourage reporting of any additional cases of intestinal twisting or blockage to help it assess risks associated with the three-shot vaccine series.

The 28 cases included 16 infants who required surgery. There have been no reports of deaths.

The vaccine received FDA approval in February 2006. About 3.5 million doses of RotaTeq have been distributed in the United States, but not all have been used, the agency said.


Intestinal Woes, Vaccine May Be Linked - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301132_pf.html)

[June91]

Call me paranoid, but this latest concept of "if a disease costs the taxpayer, then treatment is not a choice" could easily go from the excellent idea of protecting young girls from cancer right up to the point where mandatory random checks of diabetics' BG, and a reading of 180 or more would automatically result in an insulin shot being administered :eek:

Stretching it, but I think you get my drift...

[Just_Plain_John]

I hate linking outside to interesting articles, but this article pretty much sums up some of my fears: Basically, Merck is leaning on States to make this vaccine mandatory. And if you think they are doing it for noble reasons, I have a bridge in Arizona to sell you: [/url]

That's the slimy part - it's not altruism, it's simple behind-the-back marketing. Where are Merck's TV commercials for this drug like those they hammer us with for all the other drugs ?

BTW duck, I *am* looking for a nice bridge, but prefer one in downtown NYC if you have one for sale. :D

I don't think the vaccine is going to make girls any more or less active sexually - simple data on teen pregnancy will illustrate that's not an issue that will be changing any time soon, for many reasons.

This is not fundamentally different than mandatory vaccines for other contagious diseases, aside from the method of transmission. While we may not like to make that distinction, it can't be said that exposure doesn't occur. Since exposure will occur despite efforts to prevent it, does the vaccine do anything other than add protection to those who get it ? Would we not vaccinate for deadly or crippling diseases like measles or polio if they were only transmitted sexually ?

This assumes this vaccine is proven safe of course, and I don't think that is the case at this point.