cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/index.php)
-   Current Events (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   Texas now requires STD vaccine for young girls (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6367)

MikeWaters 02-03-2007 01:02 AM

Texas now requires STD vaccine for young girls
 
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont....449bc88c.html

In summary, this vaccine would treat human papilomavirus, which can cause cervical cancer.

I'm disturbed by this on a number of levels:

1) why an executive order, and not the normal process?
2) why make a vaccine for a "lifestyle disease" mandatory?
3) why is it so hard for parents to opt out?

marsupial 02-03-2007 01:54 AM

When it comes to communicable diseases like measels, mumps, etc, I am totally on the vaccination bandwagon. I think the growing number of parents refusing to vaccinate their children are crazy. This vaccination, however, is totally different. My daughter will not be in danger of getting HPV just because she sits next to someone in Algebra who has it. That it is being covered by insurance and offered free to those with low income is great. But don't force it on me and my family.

That said, boys get HPV too. If one of the goals of this order is to eradicate the virus, then boys should be required to receive the vaccination as well.

FarrahWaters 02-03-2007 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marsupial (Post 58378)
When it comes to communicable diseases like measels, mumps, etc, I am totally on the vaccination bandwagon. I think the growing number of parents refusing to vaccinate their children are crazy. This vaccination, however, is totally different. My daughter will not be in danger of getting HPV just because she sits next to someone in Algebra who has it. That it is being covered by insurance and offered free to those with low income is great. But don't force it on me and my family.

That said, boys get HPV too. If one of the goals of this order is to eradicate the virus, then boys should be required to receive the vaccination as well.

I agree. Here are some stats I read.
Some types of HPV can cause cervical cancer, although the majority of HPV infections do not progress to cervical cancer. About 14,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year in the United States, and 3,900 die from it. Most women who develop invasive cervical cancer have not had regular Pap screenings, which can detect pre-cancerous cells. Other strains of HPV are associated with vulvar cancer, anal cancer (in both men and women), and cancer of the penis (a rare cancer).

I wonder how much of a pain the state will make it to opt out. That they would make this mandatory is ridiculous. If it's preventing cancer I'm concerned with in my daughter, I'll make sure she has regular Pap screenings.

creekster 02-03-2007 07:39 PM

Is there a reason not to be vaccinated apart from objecting to a government imposed requirement?

MikeWaters 02-03-2007 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creekster (Post 58418)
Is there a reason not to be vaccinated apart from objecting to a government imposed requirement?

side effects and reactions to an untested vaccine.

it's one thing to go beta with software. It's quite another to go beta with your body.

if you were offered a HIV vaccine tomorrow, would you take it?

marsupial 02-03-2007 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 58420)
side effects and reactions to an untested vaccine.

it's one thing to go beta with software. It's quite another to go beta with your body.

if you were offered a HIV vaccine tomorrow, would you take it?

I agree with MW. But Creekster, you are right, I am more opposed to the underlying assumption that girls are going to be promiscuous and therefore need to be protected. Because HPV is not a public health issue, this is parental territory.

MikeWaters 02-03-2007 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marsupial (Post 58425)
I agree with MW. But Creekster, you are right, I am more opposed to the underlying assumption that girls are going to be promiscuous and therefore need to be protected. Because HPV is not a public health issue, this is parental territory.

It is a public health issue, given the usual usage of the word (perhaps OhioBlue will dispute this <rimshot>).

marsupial 02-03-2007 10:32 PM

OK. I guess public health issue is not the correct terminology. I mean, it's not like TB or chicken pox or any of the other things they vaccinate for. Kids aren't going to get it at school unless they are dropping their pants under the bleachers.

non sequitur 02-04-2007 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marsupial (Post 58425)
I agree with MW. But Creekster, you are right, I am more opposed to the underlying assumption that girls are going to be promiscuous and therefore need to be protected. Because HPV is not a public health issue, this is parental territory.

I couldn't disagree more. If there were a safe vaccine for HPV, and you refused to allow your daughter to be vaccinated because you didn't like the implication that your daughter might be having sex, then you are an irresponsible parent. No one wants to think their little Suzy is going to have sex, but teenage girls have sex. And at an alarming rate. If you leave it up to the parents, many will opt not to have their children vaccinated, because they don't like the implication. Sometimes children need to saved from the foolishness of their parents.

il Padrino Ute 02-04-2007 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by non sequitur (Post 58439)
I couldn't disagree more. If there were a safe vaccine for HPV, and you refused to allow your daughter to be vaccinated because you didn't like the implication that your daughter might be having sex, then you are an irresponsible parent. No one wants to think their little Suzy is going to have sex, but teenage girls have sex. And at an alarming rate. If you leave it up to the parents, many will opt not to have their children vaccinated, because they don't like the implication. Sometimes children need to saved from the foolishness of their parents.

A chastity belt would be more effective.

Zulu451 02-04-2007 12:38 AM

As a father of 3 girls here in the great state of texas I find this to be disturbing on one hand and kind of a relief on the other.

Disturbing:
- Why an executive order? I would want to look real close at the safety profile of this vaccination. Is it a live vaccine or just an antigen? Don't really know that much. How effective is the vaccine? Does the risks outweight the benefit?

Relief:
- It is always a concern about teaching my girls about birthcontrol. You teach them correct principles, chastity and virtue... Then you qualify it with, just in case don't forget to make him wear a glove? Or, oh, by the way get this vaccine just in case?
- When I was discussing this with my wife, the way I would approach the vaccine is that you don't know who she is going to marry. She might marry someone who joined the church later on or someone who made past mistakes and has since turned their life around. That person can still, unwittingly, pass along HPV and put her at risk.
- This takes the decision out of my hands and she gets the vaccine, well, because the State says so.

MikeWaters 02-04-2007 02:18 AM

NS, it is fairly well established that circumcision helps prevent transmission of HIV to males.

Should the governor make an executive order that all males in public schools be circumcised?

Or should some African countries do this, given that their future is at stake, with greater than 30% of the population HIV+?

Is someone an irresponsible parent if they don't give their son an edge in preventing HIV infection?

And aren't you a bit curious about the governor of TExas' ties to the pharmaceutical company that made this vaccine? (yes, he has ties).

What Perry doesn't realize is that he just harmed this vaccine more than he could possibly imagine. Or maybe that was his intention, but I don't think he is nearly that intelligent and cunning.

When you force the public into something that it isn't ready for, you create distrust. And ultimately rejection.

marsupial 02-04-2007 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by non sequitur (Post 58439)
I couldn't disagree more. If there were a safe vaccine for HPV, and you refused to allow your daughter to be vaccinated because you didn't like the implication that your daughter might be having sex, then you are an irresponsible parent. No one wants to think their little Suzy is going to have sex, but teenage girls have sex. And at an alarming rate. If you leave it up to the parents, many will opt not to have their children vaccinated, because they don't like the implication. Sometimes children need to saved from the foolishness of their parents.

I know very well that girls are having sex. My best friend in junior high starting having sex at 13. I also know very well that a lot of girls are not having sex. I had plenty of friends that waited until after high school. Will my daughter receive the vaccine? I don't know, but that is a decision I would like to make, not one that I want made for me.

Also, why just girls? As Farrah noted HPV can cause anal and penial cancer. Plus, carrier boys would be spreading the disease to the girls. If there is going to be the requirement at all, then have it be for boys too.

MikeWaters 02-04-2007 03:01 AM

I think it would be unprecendented to mandate a vaccine to prevent a disease (cervical cancer) you (males) cannot get.

RockyBalboa 02-04-2007 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 58457)
NS, it is fairly well established that circumcision helps prevent transmission of HIV to males.

Should the governor make an executive order that all males in public schools be circumcised?

Or should some African countries do this, given that their future is at stake, with greater than 30% of the population HIV+?

Is someone an irresponsible parent if they don't give their son an edge in preventing HIV infection?

And aren't you a bit curious about the governor of TExas' ties to the pharmaceutical company that made this vaccine? (yes, he has ties).

What Perry doesn't realize is that he just harmed this vaccine more than he could possibly imagine. Or maybe that was his intention, but I don't think he is nearly that intelligent and cunning.

When you force the public into something that it isn't ready for, you create distrust. And ultimately rejection.

In Africa it would actually be long overdue.

MikeWaters 02-04-2007 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa (Post 58468)
In Africa it would actually be long overdue.

Let's see if I can get RB and NS to agree on something.

Jeff Lebowski 02-04-2007 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 58375)
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont....449bc88c.html

In summary, this vaccine would treat human papilomavirus, which can cause cervical cancer.

I'm disturbed by this on a number of levels:

1) why an executive order, and not the normal process?
2) why make a vaccine for a "lifestyle disease" mandatory?
3) why is it so hard for parents to opt out?

Isn't this that vaccine that had an accelerated approval process due to such stunning success (100%)?

MikeWaters 02-04-2007 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski (Post 58471)
Isn't this that vaccine that had an accelerated approval process due to such stunning success (100%)?

I don't know.

Here is a decent editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/23/2389

Mandating this vaccine has a serious chance of aiding the movement against ALL vaccines.

MikeWaters 02-04-2007 05:43 PM

Here's an article mainly about the cost of it, and how doctors are losing money stocking it and administrating it:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/condi....ap/index.html

Why is it so foreign to Americans, that they pay for services rendered. If you want a $300 vaccine for your kid, then pay it. Do you think that by having insurance cover it, it is suddenly free?

non sequitur 02-04-2007 05:53 PM

The safety of the vaccine and the cost of the vaccine are obviously legitimate issues and worthy of consideration. The point I was trying to make was that if your only reason for refusing to vaccinate your child was because you don't like the implication that your child might be having sex, then you are being foolhardy.

hyrum 02-04-2007 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zulu451 (Post 58445)
As a father of 3 girls here in the great state of texas I find this to be disturbing on one hand and kind of a relief on the other.

Disturbing:
- Why an executive order? I would want to look real close at the safety profile of this vaccination. Is it a live vaccine or just an antigen? Don't really know that much. How effective is the vaccine? Does the risks outweight the benefit?

Relief:
- It is always a concern about teaching my girls about birthcontrol. You teach them correct principles, chastity and virtue... Then you qualify it with, just in case don't forget to make him wear a glove? Or, oh, by the way get this vaccine just in case?
- When I was discussing this with my wife, the way I would approach the vaccine is that you don't know who she is going to marry. She might marry someone who joined the church later on or someone who made past mistakes and has since turned their life around. That person can still, unwittingly, pass along HPV and put her at risk.
- This takes the decision out of my hands and she gets the vaccine, well, because the State says so.

So you are absolutely sure your daughters will never have sex outside of an LDS church marriage, and their husbands also? I think there are many cases of Bishops' daughters getting pregnant. And you are willing to risk that they could eventually get cancer if they happen to get into a bad relationship?

il Padrino Ute 02-04-2007 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyrum (Post 58492)
So you are absolutely sure your daughters will never have sex outside of an LDS church marriage, and their husbands also? I think there are many cases of Bishops' daughters getting pregnant. And you are willing to risk that they could eventually get cancer if they happen to get into a bad relationship?

He addressed that in his 2nd point about "relief". At least about the girls' future husbands anyway.

MikeWaters 02-04-2007 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyrum (Post 58492)
So you are absolutely sure your daughters will never have sex outside of an LDS church marriage, and their husbands also? I think there are many cases of Bishops' daughters getting pregnant. And you are willing to risk that they could eventually get cancer if they happen to get into a bad relationship?

you seem to forget that people who get regular gyn care rarely get cancer (due to pap smears).

it's the people that don't get regular care that are much more likely to get cancer.

marsupial 02-04-2007 06:47 PM

The male cervix
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 58467)
I think it would be unprecendented to mandate a vaccine to prevent a disease (cervical cancer) you (males) cannot get.

Perhaps I do not understand the vaccine. I thought it prevented HPV, the leading cause of cervical cancer. I didn't think it prevented cervical cancer. Men/boys, as far as I understand, get HPV too and if they were vaccinated it would also protect the women/girls who would be having sex with them.

This is from the CDC:

It is possible that vaccinating males will have health benefits for them by preventing genital warts and rare cancers, such as penile and anal cancer. It is also possible that vaccinating boys/men will have indirect health benefits for girls/women. Studies are now being done to find out if the vaccine works to prevent HPV infection and disease in males. When more information is available, this vaccine may be licensed and recommended for boys/men as well.

BTW: Thanks for enlightening me... And all these years I thought men had cervixes too.

MikeWaters 02-04-2007 06:51 PM

Sure require a vaccination for boys to prevent genital warts.

They'll never be able to prove that this will prevent penile and anal cancer IMO, because the disease is too rare. So it is just speculation.

But your argument was that men should be vaccinated to prevent disease in women. I am saying that it is unprecedented to give someone a vaccine when it won't prevent disease in that person (outside of genital warts).

marsupial 02-04-2007 06:56 PM

I know. I know. Because we get pregnant... Because we have cervixes...

We take all the responsibility. All the time.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.