Back Off Buddy
This will make my conservative readers, all two of you, reach for the Vaseline. Cause I'm on your side right this second.
ColoradoLib is reporting that a Senate committee in Colorado's Democratic legislature (my future home) approved a bill that would require school-aged girls to be vaccinated against HPV. The Human Papilloma Virus, or genital warts, is a fairly common STD that leads to cervical cancer.
The committee is wrong to make such inoculation a requirement.
I worked at Tampa Woman's Health Center and often counseled women who had genital warts. This is one nasty disease and just watching a girl's face as she's having warts burned off is enough to scare anyone into keeping her legs crossed for life. However, much is unknown about this new vaccine and its unintended side effects. Therefore government officials would do best to exercise some caution and common sense. Young girls should do the same.
Publicize and promote the vaccine. Pressure insurance companies into covering it. Encourage everyone to learn more about STDs and how to prevent them.
And that'll do.
posted by kate @ 2:14 PM
16 comments
16 Comments:
There is a lot going on there, isn't there? I'm not sure -- that's tough. My initial instinct is that it's probably a bad idea for the Colorado State Leg -- or any state leg, for that matter -- to be requiring inoculations of this nature by law. Then again, the right has been grossly propping this very issue up in their fight against sex...
Tough call.
Last time I took my daughter to doctors they were really pushing this stuff. I haven't had a chance to read all the details, but are insurance companies not covering it?
As the state with highest rate of non-innoculated children in the country (or darn close to the highest rate) I'd rather see the legislature get serious about the flippin' MMR before they try to tackle another disease. Just my 2$.
I agree the Legislature shouldn't force inoculations on anyone.
However, while HPVs do cause genital warts, I think the much hyped news last year that it they also cause cervical cancer is the reason for the bill.
HPVs are now recognized as the major cause of cervical cancer. In 2006, an estimated 10,000 women in the United States will be diagnosed with this type of cancer and nearly 4,000 will die from it. Cervical cancer strikes nearly half a million women each year worldwide, claiming a quarter of a million lives.
Source
Right. Cervical cancer. We've known this a long time. Which is why we should encourage vaccines.
Nothing more than encourage, please. Not for a while.
When we know more about the vaccines, maybe, but not until then...
Kate:
I'm a reporter for the Gazette and am covering the bill. It does NOT make the vaccination mandatory. What the bill says is this: girls ages 11 to 12 have to EITHER have proof they got the shot OR the "opt-out" form signed by their parents or guardian on file in order to go to the public schools. Parents retain the ability to say
"no" to the vaccination, just as they do now to other vaccines.
Of course that isn't the only source of controversy, as you know. The bill is headed to the Senate floor next week. The House has not yet taken it up.
Are you thinking about running for a legislative seat?
No, have you seen my picture? There's no way I'd get elected.
Most parents take their cues on vaccinations from regulatory agencies and public school requirements. That's even a source of contention with traditional vaccinations because there have been concerns about unintended side effects. Most parents would vaccinate their daughters without researching their options. That's my concern. We don't know enough about this new medicine and I'm wary about the government getting into bed with Merck or other research labs without proper oversight.
I am obviously not with the conservatives who are hung up on sex. If this prevents a disease that leads to cervical cancer, by all means I am for it. I just think we should be careful.
here are some fun facts for a discussion on STDs:
1) HPV is not a fairly common STD, it is the most common STD
2) there are approximately 230 different types of HPV
3) out of the 230 types of HPV, about 20 are considered high risk for a link to the possible development of cervical cancer
4) some types, but not all, cause visible warts, including genital warts. . .in fact, sometimes the only sign of an HPV infection, for a woman, is an abnormal pap
5) the majority of women with HPV will not develop cancer
6) most women who test positive for HPV will not be diagnosed with cancer, nor will they be diagnosed with a pre-cancerous condition
a routine pap is the single most important "tool" for preventing cervical cancer, since cervical cancer is highly curable when detected at an early stage.
does it make sense to advise girls/women to be vaccinated, with a relatively new inoculation, when the risk of developing cervical cancer is fairly low?
is it easier to vaccinate girls/women, than to assume that they are all receiving proper health care (i.e. regular paps)?
Thanks for the link, Kate.
The Gazette reporter is correct. This might be one of those Colorado-specific things that I assumed everyone knows. Parents can opt out of any vaccination - for the flu or whatever. It takes some paperwork.
Regardless, my point still stands. The burden would be on the one who opts out. That's unacceptable.
kate
Don't sell yourself short. Even I'd vote for you.
Even if we don't quite see eye to eye on most issues. I get the feeling your heart is in the right place.
moderate
Texas will become the first state to require the vaccination for girls entering 6th grade starting in 2008. The governor signed the executive order today.
And a nice shiny nickel for the person who predicted that Texas would be leading the way for mandatory HPV vaccines.
I don't foresee losing a nickel.
Almost sounds like the definition of counterintuitive, doesn't it?
The should states or shouldn't they mandate vaccinations argument aside, why just the girls? The vaccine is just as effective for boys, and if you vaccinate both boys and girls aged 10-15 studies show you could prevent 90% of HPV cases, not just 75%.
I came back for a bit,
I am ok with this as long as they at least partially subsidize it, for it cost between $350 and $450, which is astounding, and currently not covered by insurance. A requirement of that size should come with some help. After all, how are the poorer members of society going to afford this.
And this comment comes from a republican. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home