Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Catholic Board Defeats Move To Ban HPV Vaccine


Ok, I get the whole "don't be a whore" movement or whatever...however THIS doesn't make ANY sense at all!

Basically they're saying,

"We don't want to promote promiscuity, so we will try to ban this HPV vaccine, because the only way you can get HPV is through sexual activity."

What if a girl is raped? Oh, well, too bad for her, she'll possibly get genital warts and have a higher risk of getting cerivical cancer. *rolling eyes here*

My point of view:

Teens are going to have sex ANYWAY. Whether you give them this shot or not. If they are choosing to have sex or not, the decision most likely won't be swayed by whether or not they're protected from HPV. Just like those teens who decided to have sex anyway and got pregnant...the fact that they COULD get pregnant, didn't sway their decision to get pregnant.

Give them the shot, at least they'll be protected from a virus that could be LIFE ALTERING if they were to get CERVICAL CANCER in the future. It makes no sense to me that the Catholic Board would choose for their girls to have a higher risk of cancer and other illnesses just so they can say they didn't promote promiscuity. They have a lot of other ways they could be premoting abstinance until marriage. This world is a very scary place now and I know if I was a teenager still, I'd be getting the shot. You never know who's lurking in the dark waiting to give you genital warts and cervical cancer just to get their rocks off....withOUT your permission.


Bohemian Mom said...

Welcome to the wonderful world of blogging! Great to see you here!
Very good topic!
My opinion on the HPV vaccine is that it's just another way for the pharmacuetical companys to make money. With so many people following holistic practices these days, there's never been more commercials and advertisements for drugs.
As far as cervical cancer, this vaccine is very new, and like so many other drugs, the long term side effects aren't even known yet.
Are we setting our teenage girls up to be guinea pigs?
And, from a moral standpoint, I must agree with the Catholic church here. The vaccine will be percieved by many young girls as're safe.
WRONG. It will not protect them against other STD's and the emotional de-railment that comes from having promiscuous sex. History proves this...the birth-control pill came out in the 1960's and exploded into a sexual revolution, and look where we are now? With aids reaching almost epidemic proportions, you literally must be willing to die for the person you have sex with.
And THAT's what I'm teaching my kid, not that this vaccine will protect her, cause she's gonna do it anyway. Uhhh..NO.
Ok, I'll step off my soapbox now.

esther said...

Welcome to blogging! While no one wants to see anyone suffer from any illness, we must proceed with caution and thorough research. Seat belts may be present in cars but that does not prevent reckless drivers. A vaccine(not fully tested) may be present in the girl's body but that does not prevent STDs. I agree with all Bohemian Mom says, esp. the emotional derailment issue. And yes, one can't help but think that a drug, so recently on the market and with limited testing, is only available to make the drug company Merck wealthy(ier). Speaking from experience, not all girls(or boys) have sex. Girls aspire to the example set for them. All credit to the Catholic church, it has nothing to do with 'don't be a whore' but more to do with 'we see the danger in this and want you to live a fulfilling life, both in a physical and spiritual sense.' Having a religious basis for an issue doesn't make the truth any less valid. It simply means that an issue can be approached from both a scientific and theological stance...and I'm saying this as a proud Jewish mother ;) Other faiths(Islam) will likely raise objections to this issue too. It's important to be careful, be educated and be fair enough to present the other, proven -effective option...abstinence.

Osumashi Kinyobe said...

I don't think you have thought ANY of this through. The Vatican has no problem with this vaccine- and it must be noted that it is a new vaccine, the side effects of which are not fully known, and is only 70% effective against SOME strains of HPV- nor do the Catholic school boards have a problem with this vaccine. The Catholic Medical Association says this:

There is no ethical objection to the HPV vaccine either as a strategy against disease or in its
production. Patients and parents must have the opportunity to give informed consent to its
• The fact that HPV is spread primarily by sexual contact does not render vaccination
against it unethical. Healing and preventing diseases, no matter what their source,
are acts of mercy and a moral good. Prevention of HPV infection is distinct from,
and should not be construed as encouraging, the behavior by which HPV is spread.

(further reading here:

Indeed, anything that might reduce cancer is lauded. The problem is a largely moral one. Should a school whose principle it is to promote proper moral guidelines be promoting a somewhat effective vaccine against a virus that is transmitted through sexual contact? The answer should be no for many reasons. The so-called sexual liberation of the 1960's has liberated no one but given rise to physicial, as well as social, ills. It may even shock you to learn that many kids DON'T have sex, or smoke, or even watch inappropriate TV shows. Proper parenting can do so much. It is lazy parenting, in my opinion, to give kids the license to engage in ANY vice simply because one thinks these are pitfalls someone may fall into. Pessimistic much? Furthermore, does it not bother anyone that the State- or the Crown, for that matter- can force children to take an injection they may not need against their parents' consent? And in a disease-ridden school with nothing more than a public health-care nurse to address any immediate concerns? HPV is not like measles or diphteria, diseases which are far more communicable and dangerous to the public health than HPV. To force children to get these innoculations without proper information and consent from legal guardians doesn't just smack of government interference in the lives of private citizens but is grossly immoral, as well.

Bohemian Mom said...

My oh are getting alot of blog traffic for a rookie!

I wanted to show you this....It's a letter to the editor in today's National Post. It's written by a 17 yr old female student. National Post Friday, September 21, 2007

The HPV vaccine, Gardasil, isn't the answer to the problem of the rampant spread of STDs among teens. The vaccine is like putting a band-aid over an infected wound as opposed to cleaning it -- it provides temporarily relief, but doesn't really fix the problem by going to its roots. The real problem is that girls don't know or believe the effects that sex outside of marriage has on them -- physically and, especially, emotionally. Teenage girls approach sex outside of marriage looking for true love, but instead find they have been used for someone else's pleasure. If more girls knew this, they wouldn't be having sex outside of marriage, and there would be no risk of STDs. Though HPV might not be the most common STD, another will soon become as common as HPV is now, and there will also be more unwanted pregnancies because more girls will feel "safe" and will have sex outside of marriage. Also, the HPV vaccine being offered in schools will cause tension and division between teens and their parents because many will have conflicts of interest. The end result of the Gardasil campaign is that the STD problem isn't solved, but the promoters of Gardasil come out with millions of dollars, while the girls are left with other STDs, babies out of wedlock, fights with their parents and, possibly, unknown side-effects down the road. I definitely do not support this crusade whose aim is to help girls and women, but whose end result actually does the opposite. Kamilah Thorpe, age 17, Toronto.

Ayre said...

First, I didn't mention anything at all about The Vatican...I mentioned the Catholic school board and their stance on the subject that promoting this vaccine will promote promiscuity...which I have to totally disagree with....because like you said, and I quote, "It may even shock you to learn that many kids DON'T have sex, or smoke, or even watch inappropriate TV shows."

You're right about that...however no matter how good some parents are, there are just as many out there that aren't so good, and those parents happen to be raising the children who grow up to be predators...(which brings me back to my point about being protected from HPV in the case of sexual assault or rape...unfortunately, it does happen and I know I would want my daughter protected if ever, God forbid, something like that should happen to her).

Then there are also the children who come from a GREAT home, who just do it anyway....even though they were raised to do otherwise.

Another thing....I'm not asking that they FORCE this vaccine on children...if you don't want it, don't get it...but that it be made available to those who do feel the need to protect themselves, even a little, from any mistakes that they may make....and let's face it, everyone makes mistakes.

Parental consent? Absolutely. I totally believe that parents should know what is going on with their childrens it a tylenol or an HPV vaccine.

As a side note, with the cervical issues I happen to be dealing with right now, you can bet your ass I would be getting that vaccine if someone came to my work and said, here, have this for free if you'd like, it could help you in the future.

Osumashi Kinyobe said...

I just assumed you didn't know what you were talking about. And I'm right.
When you think about it, no one but the government of Ontario is preventing girls from what has yet to be proven as an effective vaccine against a sexually transmitted virus. It costs one $400 if administered in the controlled environment of a doctor's office (another $400 years down the road as the efficacy is five years), but it's free in the schools. Where does this leave concerned parents? Out $800.
If you are concerned about sexual violence, then put rapists behind bars. How hard is that?
And again, as you have missed the point of why and who should administer this randomly effective vaccine, you also underestimate any value system that would render this band-aid solution useless.

Ayre said...

Osumashi Kinyobe,

I CLEARLY stated in my Welcome post:

"I invite comments (conflicting views and otherwise) but will not tolerate being disrespected....I am entitled to my own opinion and intend to voice it here where I can remove myself from a heated conversation."

You CLEARLY disrespected me with the following comment:

I just assumed you didn't know what you were talking about. And I'm right."

I'll give you another chance. It's ok to voice your opinion...but please don't disrespect me.

Ayre said...

Oh and one more thing:

"If you are concerned about sexual violence, then put rapists behind bars. How hard is that?"

Well, I'm not sure, but I think I'm right in saying you can't put someone in jail who hasn't offended yet...and those people do exist. It's impossible to protect yourself by simply "putting rapists behind bars"...because there will always be someone new.

Kota Bear said...

Osumashi Kinyobe, that was pretty disrespectful. Completely un called for. Anyway, I won't dwell on that.

As for the topic at hand, I agree that it should be available, but not forced. Let the parents decide and let the parents also be the ones to step up and say 'This is not an invitation. This is an investment in your future good health.'

Just my humble opinion on the matter, though.