Article: Anger Over Cervical Cancer Vaccine for 12yr (cont.)

[Nikolita]

Taken from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307105/Anger-cervical-cancer-vaccine-girls-12.html

Full title: "Anger Over Cervical Cancer Vaccine for 12 Year Old Girls" ("Cervical cancer jab for girls aged 12 can be given without parental consent")


Family rights campaigners have called for a change in the law after it was revealed that girls as young as 12 can be given the cervical cancer vaccine without their parents’ consent.
Doctors and nurses have been told they are under no legal obligation to seek the permission of the parent or guardian.
The jab is being offered to girls between 12 and 18 as part of a nationwide programme designed to protect them against the sexually transmitted HPV virus, which causes 70 per cent of cervical tumours.

Opponents have argued that giving girls the jab and protecting them against a sexually transmitted infection before they are even teenagers is giving them the go-ahead to experiment sexually.

Norman Wells, director of Family and Youth Concern, said: ‘Giving the vaccination to girls without the consent of their parents is unethical and a recipe for disaster.

'It is sending out the message that girls under 16 have a right to a private sex life and is treating parents with contempt.’
The Department of Health confirmed that parental consent was desirable but not essential.  

[LorienLlewellyn]

I think people under 16 do have a right to a private sex life as long as they are educated, ready, and prepared.

But the HPV vaccine hasn't been well tested. We have no idea what it will do in the future. Even the vaccine's website admits that.

And a lot of kids might not fully understand the facts. They might not realize that the vaccine may potentially be as harmful as, or even more harmful than, cervical cancer in the long run. Many other girls may think that if they have the vaccine, they are immune to all strains of HPV and don't need to get regular paps.

So I think it's good for parents to be involved in this decision making process, to explain things to their kids, to make sure their kids get regular paps, etc. This vaccine isn't something to be taken lightly. It's not something we should just be giving to kids who don't understand the potential risks involved without even having parental consent. Maybe in the future when/if they prove it's safe. But not now.  

[Nikolita]

Agreed. I sit on the fence with this issue.

The comments are full of fail though. Most of them are full of batshit paranoia. rofl (at least the ones at the top)  

[Song of the Rain]

Eh, I'd be worried about the long-term consequences of the vaccine. And I would also be worried that my child was being pressured into receiving the vaccine, and not being told that they had the choice. There is so much emphasis on vaccines being "necessary" (regardless of what the vaccine is for) and "perfectly safe" that I would feel like my child was duped into getting it if I wasn't able to talk to her about the risks and limitations of the vaccine.  

[Asher2501]

Cancer prevention... makes people mad? I dun get it. X_x *goes back to sleep*  

[LorienLlewellyn]

Asher2501

Cancer prevention... makes people mad? I dun get it. X_x *goes back to sleep*

It's not quite as simple as cancer prevention versus no cancer prevention.

The vaccine protects again the strains of HPV that usually cause cervical cancer. But what the makers of the shot don't tell you in the commercial is that HPV isn't usually a big deal and it doesn't usually ever turn into cancer anyway. In fact, most people fight of the virus before it really does much of anything at all. Most of them won't even realize that they had the virus.

Cervical cancer is also really slow to develop, which means it's slow to spread. Doctors can even see the cells turning funny before they really turn cancerous. So as long as a woman keeps up on her paps, worst case situation is usually just getting a funny looking piece of her cervix cut off before it can turn into cancer.

The HPV vaccine, on the other hand, is fairly new. It has not been well tested. The makers have no idea what side effects could possibly show up years after girls take the shot or how every girl will react to it now. That means there could possibly be health issues that are a hell of a lot more serious than cervical cancer. And a few young girls have already died suddenly after getting the vaccine.

So people have to decide between a type of cancer that isn't usually a big a deal and that they probably won't get anyway versus taking a vaccine that may prevent that cancer but could possibly cause a more serious issue or even death. Personally, I'd rather risk the cancer until they do more research on that shot.  

[Song of the Rain]

LorienLlewellyn

It's not quite as simple as cancer prevention versus no cancer prevention.

The vaccine protects again the strains of HPV that usually cause cervical cancer. But what the makers of the shot don't tell you in the commercial is that HPV isn't usually a big deal and it doesn't usually ever turn into cancer anyway. In fact, most people fight of the virus before it really does much of anything at all. Most of them won't even realize that they had the virus.

Cervical cancer is also really slow to develop, which means it's slow to spread. Doctors can even see the cells turning funny before they really turn cancerous. So as long as a woman keeps up on her paps, worst case situation is usually just getting a funny looking piece of her cervix cut off before it can turn into cancer.

The HPV vaccine, on the other hand, is fairly new. It has not been well tested. The makers have no idea what side effects could possibly show up years after girls take the shot or how every girl will react to it now. That means there could possibly be health issues that are a hell of a lot more serious than cervical cancer. And a few young girls have already died suddenly after getting the vaccine.

So people have to decide between a type of cancer that isn't usually a big a deal and that they probably won't get anyway versus taking a vaccine that may prevent that cancer but could possibly cause a more serious issue or even death. Personally, I'd rather risk the cancer until they do more research on that shot.

Exactly! My mom had HPV and had to have some of her cervix biopsied, and eventually got a hysterectomy, but even then they knew and were treating the pre-cancerous cells for four years before doing the final surgery.

As long as girls are receiving regular pap smears, cancer-forming HPV should be easy to catch early, and the risk of even the pre-cancerous cells becoming cancerous is fairly low.

I'd be more comfortable going in to the doctor's regularly and getting pap smears than getting a vaccine that has already caused over 70 girls to die, and has caused serious reactions (seizures, strokes, and muscle tremors) in thousands more.  

[LorienLlewellyn]

I have HPV. My doctor wants to see me every six months just to keep an eye on things but otherwise isn't very worried.

I have been biopsied on two separate occasions because I have two funny looking spots on cervix. My first biopsy showed just a few funny looking cells. My second one showed more funny looking cells than the first time. They still think there is a good chance I will fight it off without a problem. But I'm due for another appointment soon, and if I look just as funny or funnier than last time, they said they might want to just cut off those two pieces to be safe.

So it hasn't really been that big of a deal. Sure, it's been a minor inconvenience going in every six months instead of every year and having to get a 10-15 minute exam instead of a 1-2 minute one, but oh well. The biopsies haven't hurt at all. Hopefully it doesn't hurt if/when they cut the rest out! We'll see. But either way, at least it's treatable and we know exactly what we're dealing with.