Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Opposing prevention of cervical cancer

  1. Nov 1, 2005 #1

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/31/MNG2LFGJFT1.DTL#story

    Debate rages on use of cervical cancer vaccine
    While almost 100% effective, some contend use condones teen sex

    Rob Stein, Washington Post
    Monday, October 31, 2005

    "Washington -- A new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer has set up a clash between health advocates who want to use the shots aggressively to prevent thousands of malignancies and social conservatives who say immunizing teen-agers could encourage sexual activity.

    Although the vaccine will not become available until next year at the earliest, activists on both sides have begun maneuvering to influence how widely the immunizations will be employed.

    Groups working to reduce the toll of the cancer are eagerly awaiting the vaccine and want it to become part of the standard roster of shots that children, especially girls, receive just before puberty...."
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 1, 2005 #2

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Mmm, because a fear of possibly going on to develop cervical cancer later on in life has always been a really effective means of convincing young couples not to shag!

    It really makes me wonder about the common sense (let alone degree of care for their offspring) of some of these people. My mother was a pretty strong Catholic and she had me knowing how to use condoms long before I ever needed them!
     
  4. Nov 1, 2005 #3

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It leaves me wondering the same thing. They'd rather their daughters risk getting cancer just so they can stick their fingers in their ears and sing "la la la" when anyone suggests that teens just might have sex. The thing is, why not give the vaccination to teens? Even if they choose to remain abstinent until marriage, why should they wait until they are married to get vaccinated? If it's something a parent can ensure their child is protected against from an early age, why risk that they won't think of it in the flurry of preparations for a wedding?

    And, really, if the risks of things like syphilis, gonorrhea, and pregnancy aren't enough to prevent them from engaging in unprotected intercourse, do they really think that not having a vaccination against something that increases your risk of maybe getting cancer much later in life is going to deter anyone?
     
  5. Nov 1, 2005 #4

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Over here, they were talking about giving the vaccine to girls at a much younger age, in primary school (maybe 9-10?). Even then, I don't really see the problem. After all, we're all given the MMR vaccine before we have pubes, isn't the rubella side of that purely for when the girlies get up the duff (correct me if I'm wrong though...).

    Exactly! Bloody idiots.

    I wonder how many of these parents who are against jabbing their kids are the same ones who fail to educate them properly, which results in underage sex (and pregnancies) anyway.
     
  6. Nov 1, 2005 #5

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm going to really hope you just use terms very differently in Britain than the US and you're talking about pregnancy there. Rubella is German Measles, so not great for anyone to get, but very serious if a pregnant woman catches it. It's not even like most kids have a clue what the vaccinations are for anyway...they just get told it's an MMR vaccine, and that's the end of that. If you told a 10 year-old they're getting an HPV vaccine, do you really think they're going to care beyond the fact that they're getting stuck with a needle? If they ask why they need it, or what HPV does, you don't have to tell them anything more than, "It can cause cancer," if they're too young to get into any more discussion than that.

    That always seems to me to be the real issue, they fear having to actually talk to their kids about sex, so don't want to do anything that might prompt questions about it. When you just tell your kids not to do something with no proper explanation or education to back it up, that's when they are going to rebel by doing exactly what you told them not to do.
     
  7. Nov 1, 2005 #6

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Uh oh, last time I forgot about US/UK language differences I offended Danger! Oh well. Yes, I meant pregnancy.

    Ah okay, so a Rubella vaccine isn't only potentially beneficial if the subject is sexually active then. Ta Moonie!
     
  8. Nov 2, 2005 #7

    adrenaline

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Even if a girl remains a virgin until marriage, the odds are her husband won't be virgin, and he may likely have human papilloma virus on him. (I apologise for any stereotyping). By the way, I don't see why boys can't be vaccinated for the above reason.
    I look at the vaccine like a seat belt, just because you are wearing one doesn't mean you are going to look to get into an accident. Just because a little girl is vaccinated doesn't mean she is going to look to engage in intercourse.

    By the way, in the US, the standard childhood vaccinations now include Hepatitis B, another sexually transmitted disease and I don't see any uproar about it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2005
  9. Nov 2, 2005 #8

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That must have been some serious mishap then, because I can generally follow your musings with relative ease. This wasn't the thing about the gum boots and Velcro mitts, was it?

    (Seriously, I can't recall ever being offended by you no matter how much you might try. [other than by referencing me in with the US] :tongue: )
     
  10. Nov 2, 2005 #9

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I was wondering about that too...I was thinking it must have been quite a faux pas if it managed to offend you. I do think I need to send Brewie a PM to let him know what the American interpretation of that remark would be before he seriously offends some American woman and gets himself beaten up by her and her significant other. :rofl:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Opposing prevention of cervical cancer
  1. Cell phones and cancer (Replies: 12)

  2. Yay! No cancer. (Replies: 25)

  3. Cancer drug scam (Replies: 28)

Loading...