Posted on 01/16/2007 7:46:58 AM PST by Thywillnotmine
WORRIED parents have blocked government plans to vaccinate girls as young as nine against a sexually-transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer.
Health chiefs have abandoned proposals to offer the jab against human papilloma virus (HPV) to primary school children after parents complained that it was inappropriate for girls of such a young age.
Scotland on Sunday revealed last summer that ministers were considering offering the jab to children in a desperate attempt to stop the "epidemic" in cervical cancer. The proposals for a nationwide scheme followed successful trials of a new vaccine in Glasgow.
But ministers have now been forced to concentrate on plans for the treatment on girls of at least 12 - itself a hugely controversial move.
The government U-turn came after medical experts who make the final recommendations on the baseline defences against HPV were warned of parents' opposition. The experts also threw out proposals to vaccinate boys against HPV, despite evidence that they can transmit the virus through sexual contact.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.scotsman.com ...
What is your point?
Your daughter needs to realize that the dentis is a health care provider and not a judge of morality She need to remember that not all girls are like her and that the dentist is trying not to cause harm to her, his patient, or potentially an unborn child. I rememeber in my highschool days, some of the sweetest and modest looking girls were wild and some of the sluttiest looking ones never did it at all!
And one day your daughter will be 50 and, more than likely, she will be infected by that point with the virus that causes cervical cancer. The vaccine is only really effective if given before she starts having sex.
"IF" has become a very powerful word these days for being so small.
"IF" the world is heating up, we're all gonna die.
"IF" Republicans get elected, Social Security will wither on the vine.
"IF" Bush gets elected, the blacks will be forced back into slavery.
This would be for girls that are sexually active? Do they plan on giving this shot to all girls regardless of being sexually active?
Absolutely correct. And if there were a simple vaccine that could virtually eliminate breast cancer or heart disease, I'd support that too. Cervical cancer isn't the biggest killer in the US -- but 4,000 women still die from it every year. That number includes plenty of faithful, upstanding moral women.
Of course. I explained that to her. She was just shocked when the dentist asked her a question she thought was unreasonable. She felt the question was degrading.
The vaccine is for girls who plan on being sexually active during the course of their lifetimes, regardless of the number of sexual partners (i.e. "1" is enough). If your daughters are set on becoming nuns, then this vaccine may be superfluous. Otherwise, not.
TS
There are a lot of ifs, but 4000 American women still die every year from a disease that can be almost entirely prevented by responsible parents. Again, maybe I'm blind but I don't see the downside of this safe, affordable vaccine.
I tried to fight a mandated chicken pox vaccination. I lost that fight badly. I do see the validity of vaccinations but the truth is, I value choice above all other things. Vaccinations are about protection, that holds merit, but if we lose all choice, bit by bit, what is it we are trying to protect in the first place?
A life without choice? Is that one worth living?
Thank you for knowing my kid better than me. Why, without people telling parents what to do to their children, they may actually make the mistake of raising them themselves.
You can't always tell a liberal wh*re by their looks, nor can you always tell if a young woman is pregnant in the first few months. But a health-care provider MUST ask these questions; otherwise, he'd be negligent and open to malpractice suits.
You keep saying it is safe and affordable....long term side effects, if any, have yet to be determined and as to cost, my understanding is that it is a series of 3 shots at a cost of at least $100 a pop.
I still have a few years before I need to decide if my daughter will get this or not, a few years where more information about its side effects will emerge - but even if it proves to be 100% safe, it should NOT be mandatory.
I'll make a deal with you. You get your daughter(s) injected, and I'll not get my daughter injected. That way, we'll both raise our own children our own way, and we'll both be happy.
(Forcing this on the public is Frankenstein fascism.)
It's not about knowing your kid. It's about knowing your kid, knowing your kid in 30 years, and knowing her future husband perfectly and completely, knowing with complete unwavering certainty than not only has he never had any sort of sexual contact with any woman other than your daughter, but that he never will either.
Again, seems like a foolish gamble to me.
This would be for girls that are sexually active? Do they plan on giving this shot to all girls regardless of being sexually active?
Yes. They call it Preventitive Medicine. Welcome to a Brave New World where school based healthcare centers will protect your children against some of the varagies of premarital sex.
So is teaching her how to drive. Don't do it!!!
Actually that's a very good analogy.
"Giving your kid a deadly cancer..."
According to the American Cancer Society, not ones to discount the threat, between 1955 and 1992 the death rate from cervical cancer in the US declined 74% due to pap tests. Pap tests can detect pre-cancerous cell changes and treatment can prevent their development. Death rates from cervical cancer continue to decline, on average, 4% a year due to pap tests and subsequent treatment.
Yet, you would say that if I am unwilling to inject this substance in my daughter, which may have unforeseen, even deadly effects 20 or 30 years down the road, I am sentencing her to certain death? Untrue.
I will encourage my daughter to be abstinent before marriage and to get regular paps once she begins to have sex. That has virtually a 100% detection and cure rate these days. No need to inject substances whose long-term effects are unknown.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.