States balk at cancer vaccine mandate

Yahoo News ^ | May 20, 2007 | SHANNON McCAFFREY

[Marie]

It's true madness when a kid may have to be taken to another state to get a vaccine against CANCER because some idiots are afraid of it.

I don't believe people are saying that the vaccine shouldn't be available. They're saying that it shouldn't be *forced*.

Let's say that *you* are the parent who takes your 12 year old daughter to the dr to get this vaccine. You think you're doing the right thing to protect her and confident in your decision. A few minutes after the vaccine is given, she throws up. "OK, she's upset. This will pass." But it doesn't. She gets a headache, throws up some more, complains of severe pain at the injection site and develops neurological problems. Or worse yet, she gets the shot, seems fine, then drops dead two weeks later.

Now imagine that you're a parent who's already worried about the short and long-term effects of this shot who's being forced, by the state, to give it to your daughter anyway.

As a mom, it's my job to teach, nourish and protect my children. The state has *no right* to override my efforts to protect my kids. I don't care how much someone loves kids. Nobody will ever have a greater interest in the well being of these two than I do.

We just don't know that it's safe enough for mass vaccinations. In time, I may be won over, but not right now. I've worked too hard to raise this girl to gamble her health on the throw of the dice.

[Marie]

As someone who is both religious and conservative, religious conservatives are more and more ticking me off. The argument that a vaccine would promote promiscuity boggles the mind for so many reasons, not the least of which is that it assumes teenagers are doing a precise risk/reward analysis when they decide to have sex.

I agree. I feel that this argument actually takes away from the very solid safety concerns.

[Marie]

Your utter lack of understaning that every vaccine and every medicine on the market, from penicillin on down, carries risk is also noted.

You're right that every vaccine has risk. But my daughter cannot get HPV by sharing a drinking fountain or breathing the same air as another kid who has the virus. She could get measles (actually she *did* get measles... fully vaccinated, thank you) or mumps or the flu through every day contact. Much of HPV transmission can be prevented by behavior modification. As for the "the husband may have a past" argument; she can get the vaccine later if need be.

Playing the odds. What we really need to know is: How many girls have side effects from the shot? (Is it 1:1000?) What are the odds that a woman will die from cervical cancer? (Is it higher or lower?) What are the *long term* side effects of the shot? (birth defects? infertility? autoimmune disease? cancer? How can we possibly have a frickin' clue about *that* for at least 10 years?)

Until these questions are answered, I will not be giving my daughter this shot.

[Marie]

I wasn't aware of that. In that case, hell no! I'll humbly take my lumps and flames on this one for not being better informed.

OMG. A FReeper just swallowed their pride.

I can die now.

;-)

[saradippity]

I am sure if you would read all the information on Gardasil you would be arguing against it too.

It is a very costly,partially effective counter to a cancer that can be dealt with very easily by getting routine Pap smears. The vaccine will not take the place of Paps which will continue to be necessary.

Furthermore,it is relatively untested since the tests were done five or so years ago and the long term consequences are unknown.

Additionally,cervical cancer deaths are but a tiny fraction of the deaths attributable to cancer each year.

All told this is one of the biggest boondoggles they've created that the public has a voice in and if they don't say no,they are more stupid than I think possible,and I am pretty cynical.

[cammie]

I agree with you that the determination as to whether or not to get the vaccine should be left to the parents and the physician, since the only person being put at risk by the lack of vaccination is the parents’ own child.

However, you did say that a woman could be vaccinated later if her husband “has a past.” That’s only true if she’s vaccinated prior to any sexual activity.

[Marie]

However, you did say that a woman could be vaccinated later if her husband “has a past.” That’s only true if she’s vaccinated prior to any sexual activity.

I would hope that my daughter gets to know the guy she's sleeping with well enough to know if she's going to need the vaccine before the act.

[zeugma]

It's true madness when a kid may have to be taken to another state to get a vaccine against CANCER because some idiots are afraid of it.

Can you tell me how many 11 year old girls were involved in the clinical trials for this drug, and for how long?

 

[cammie]

I guess it’s a pretty simple question. If the guy answers “are you a virgin” in the negative, then she’ll need the vaccine. I don’t know, it seems to me that every woman will end up needing the vaccine, given the state of guys these days.

[Hydroshock]

There is still to little data on it to tell its long term effects and effectiveness. And any family that wants it can get it, just tax dollaras will not be paying for it and it will not be mandatory.