Updated resources below.*Alliance Teacher: And now, everyone can enjoy enlightenment and the comfort of true civilization....
Pupil: Why were the Independents even fighting us? Why weren't they looking to be more civilized?
Alliance Teacher: So with so much social and medical advances we can bring to the Independents, why would they fight so hard against us?
River: We meddle.
Alliance Teacher: River?
River: People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don't run. Don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.
Alliance Teacher: River, we're not telling people what to think. We're just trying to show them how. (Stabs River in the forehead with pen)
In my cowardly way I always was secretly relieved that my girls were too old for me to have to worry about what to do when I heard about certain vaccines for children that were made using aborted babies (ugh!).
However, here comes a different vaccine with different issues attached ... that requires us to take a stand.
AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry – usually a hero to social conservatives – surprised many of them Friday by making Texas the first state to mandate a vaccine for sixth-grade girls to prevent a sexually transmitted infection that leads to most kinds of cervical cancer.
It so happens that not too long ago I had printed out Catholic Medical Weekly's
evenhanded and informative article about this virus. I even read various portions aloud to Tom and Rose, with this being the money quote for us.
(I have edited the layout to make it easier to read.)Why isn’t it a swell idea?
First. The vaccine does not remove the need for Pap smears nor will it do anything for a lady already infected.
Second, it doesn’t do anything about other sexually transmitted diseases, although it’s easy to imagine a 12 year old (remember, that’s the target audience) who thinks it does. For that matter, I can easily imagine a 20 year old who might think it does, but that’s neither here nor there.
Thirdly, there are concerns that the FDA has "fast-tracked" licensure of Gardasil, without adequate study of its safety in little girls.[5]
Fourth, and most importantly, no one knows what effect universal vaccination of 9 year olds might have on adolescent tendency to have sex. However, the data of the past forty years of social experimentation suggest that it would tend to increase sexual activity. That’s been the outcome of all the other experiments on early immersion of young children into the fetid world of “sex ed” and teenage contraception, and there’s no reason this should have a different effect.
Regarding the morality of the vaccine itself, its manufacture does not involve aborted babies[6]. So the moral problems attached to, say varicella or rubella vaccines do not apply here.
HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. You don’t get it if the person next to you coughs, and you don’t get it from a water fountain or a toilet seat. Requiring HPV immunizations for young girls (and that is what ACIP “recommendations” amount to: requirements) is, in my view, no different from requiring that all school age girls be put on contraception....
I encourage anyone with daughters to go read the full article as it gives very good information about the vaccine and the issues involved. No matter what your thoughts on the main issues it is important to be fully informed when you make decisions about this vaccine.
It is important to keep in mind also, that although this vaccine is being trumpeted as the answer to avoiding cervical cancer, it is vital to recognize what it really does. The vaccine may reduce the incidence of infection with the HPV virus and
does not necessarily prevent cervical cancer.
I have had grave misgivings from the time that the FDA changed policies to allow fast tracking of drug clearances and this just seems to prove my point. Our society at this time seems to be governed by knee-jerk reactions and policy mandates made based on public opinion and incomplete research. I object on those grounds, much less on those outlined in CMW's article.
I am not sure whether this requirement will be imposed as a retroactive measure on girls over the age of 12 such as my own high school and college age daughters. Governor Perry does allow an "out" for objectors.
In his executive order, Mr. Perry said girls must receive the human papillomavirus vaccine before school starts in September 2008. While noting that parents may opt out of the vaccine for conscience or religious reasons, he said it "provides us with an incredible opportunity to effectively target and prevent cervical cancer."
Talking about the legislation yesterday, I told Rose that I do object. Without missing a beat she said, "I don't need you to object. I object on my own behalf. They can forget it."
(A proud mom moment there.) I will be sending article links on to Hannah so she can see the facts behind the spin.
* I knew I was missing some TV quote to set this whole post off ... and just couldn't think of which one. Thanks to Tim for stepping up on this one!UPDATE - way more than you wanted to know about what I was thinking
A good friend challenged me on some of the material and also was surprised that one of the reasons I didn't like the idea of the vaccine was the possibility of the effect on adolescents' tendency to have sex
(as mentioned in the excerpt above).
I guess I should have qualified it more ... mostly because I hear through Hannah and Rose how much misinformation they are told by friends "is absolutely true" and most of the time it is about half-true if that.
So I looked at this and thought of the girls who come into their freshman year of high school pregnant because "everybody knows" that you can't get pregnant when you're on the pill or using condoms or without full penetration ... or whatever the myth is that they've been told. And this just looked like a silver bullet for people to start saying that it works on all STDs.
Another objection of mine is the money trail from Merck to Perry mentioned in the DMN article, but I didn't get into that ...
It also annoys the heck out of me that one of Perry's main justifications was "but I talked to my wife about it" .... does she think with her ovaries? And is he unable to think on this issue because he doesn't have any? Sheez!
(Don't blame me, I voted for "one tough grandma!")Also I guess that I was responding to my extreme dislike recently of having a "nanny" government mentality everywhere. Cities than ban transfats, people who want to ban smoking in all public places in Texas, etc. I just saw this as one more thing that "the man" is sticking to us. It comes down to trusting us to make intelligent decisions ourselves ... OR letting us choose how to go to hell in our own way.
Talking to the girls about "the old days" when I was growing up I also have seen the contrast between "live-and-let-live" back then and an extremely narrow-minded, intolerant judgement meted out by individuals and governments. So I react to that as well ...
However, I didn't feel like writing about it that way. Lazy ya know.
Actually it was good that my friend pushed me on this because I went looking for more information and found 10 things you might not know about Gardasil
(see Other Resources above for the link). Interesting if for no other reason than giving us other questions to ask ... and I'd never have found it if not for my friend making me smarten up! Good on her!
Other resources to check - updated:- Catholic Mom has been addressing this issue for some time.
- American Papist is doing full coverage as well with many links to different resources.
- Dr. Melissa Clouthier has another look at this issue and also brings good questions to mind.
- A letter to the editor in our newspaper this morning brought up the fact that thalomide was thought perfectly safe and, therefore, was prescribed to women for morning sickness ... an uncomfortable situation to be sure but one that most people can get through on their own while just feeling terrible. The now-infamous result was to mutate the next generation in a terrible way. Tom points out that this was a problem was visited upon British children but not Americans because the FDA was still testing the drug ... back in their cautious days for which I am thankful. An interesting comparison to be sure.
- Rev. Thomas Euteneuer has a good column about this issue. (Thanks to Georgette for this ... I still miss her blog.)
- 10 things You Might Not Know About Gardasil looks into the HPV vaccine for a whole slew of different reasons and backs up their questions with info from Merck and the FDA.
- I really don't think of myself as being part of the "religious right" (which I realize may make some laugh, especially with a blog name like Happy Catholic). However, having excerpted something which mentions a possible increase of sexual activity for minors seems to have put that particular topic top of mind for most readers, despite the other more pressing misgivings mentioned in this post and the update above. My attention was politely directed to a post which discusses the fact that mandatory vaccination requirements allow availability to the less fortunate and keep costs down. I would have found this more convincing had there been more facts to back up the basic premises and less time spent lambasting those with which the author took umbrage, namely the abstinence movement and the religious right. However, be that as it may, the core arguments are valid for those who believe the vaccine is safe and you can read it for yourself here: Rejecting Vaccine "Choice". (If anyone can provide me with a post but that has some solid documentation and less polemics to sort through ... let me know and I'll put it here ...)
- Medical Cost versus Benefit Modeling: from a commenter comes excellent, unemotional information about how to evaluate this vaccine ... and links to recommendations already made in professional medical journals.
