| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Skylace
Admin
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:30 pm Post subject: Cervical cancer vaccine required |
 |
|
|
|
Governor Richardson will sign legislation that would require girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer.
Richardson’s spokesman, Gil Gallegos, says no date has been set for it to be signed, but it probably will be later this week.
The measure will go into effect 90 days from the governor’s signature.
A Corrales physician and Republican state Senator, Steve Komadina, says the vaccine is one of the biggest improvements in women’s health in his lifetime.
Gallegos says Richardson believes it’s imperative for girls to be protected against cervical cancer.
____________
I'm split on this. I think it's a good idea but requiring 11 and 12 year olds to get it is a bit weird. Of course, I know there are plenty of 11 and 12 year olds in the state having sex already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pirtybirdy
'Native New Yorker'
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Location: FL USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Yeah, it is kind of creepy. As you said though, kids are having sex younger and younger. This vaccine will prevent them catching the HPV virus, which is genital warts. This can lead to cervical cancer if the internal warts go cancerous. I suppose if it's a quick jab, it's well worth it to protect an unsuspecting person of getting such a terrible virus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eefanincan
Admin
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:48 am Post subject: Re: Cervical cancer vaccine required |
|
|
|
|
| Skylace wrote: | Governor Richardson will sign legislation that would require girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer.
Richardson’s spokesman, Gil Gallegos, says no date has been set for it to be signed, but it probably will be later this week.
The measure will go into effect 90 days from the governor’s signature.
A Corrales physician and Republican state Senator, Steve Komadina, says the vaccine is one of the biggest improvements in women’s health in his lifetime.
Gallegos says Richardson believes it’s imperative for girls to be protected against cervical cancer.
____________
I'm split on this. I think it's a good idea but requiring 11 and 12 year olds to get it is a bit weird. Of course, I know there are plenty of 11 and 12 year olds in the state having sex already. |
I have mixed feelings on this as well. I think it's rather presumptious to presume that all 11 and 12 yr old girls require this type of vaccine, but I can see that the number of girls in this age range being sexually active is increasing. But immunizations are not without risk and should really be considered before making them a scheduled (regular) thing. If memory serves me correctly, I believe the vaccine lasts approx. 10 yrs at which time women may need to be vaccinated again. Also, it seems to be most effective in women under the age of 26 --- but of course, all of my resources are at work and the specifics escape me right now  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skylace
Admin
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:06 pm Post subject: Re: Cervical cancer vaccine required |
|
|
|
|
| eefanincan wrote: | | Skylace wrote: | Governor Richardson will sign legislation that would require girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer.
Richardson’s spokesman, Gil Gallegos, says no date has been set for it to be signed, but it probably will be later this week.
The measure will go into effect 90 days from the governor’s signature.
A Corrales physician and Republican state Senator, Steve Komadina, says the vaccine is one of the biggest improvements in women’s health in his lifetime.
Gallegos says Richardson believes it’s imperative for girls to be protected against cervical cancer.
____________
I'm split on this. I think it's a good idea but requiring 11 and 12 year olds to get it is a bit weird. Of course, I know there are plenty of 11 and 12 year olds in the state having sex already. |
I have mixed feelings on this as well. I think it's rather presumptious to presume that all 11 and 12 yr old girls require this type of vaccine, but I can see that the number of girls in this age range being sexually active is increasing. But immunizations are not without risk and should really be considered before making them a scheduled (regular) thing. If memory serves me correctly, I believe the vaccine lasts approx. 10 yrs at which time women may need to be vaccinated again. Also, it seems to be most effective in women under the age of 26 --- but of course, all of my resources are at work and the specifics escape me right now |
That's some interesting stuff eefan. Let us know if you find out some more. This is such a new vaccine I know little about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maycm
'cheeky banana'
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Personally I would want my child to have the protection this vaccine offers, and sure, why not at 11 or 12? If it lasts for 10 years then at least it’s one less thing to worry about for whenever she becomes sexually active.
My only question on this is whether it is right to legislate such a thing. Is it mandatory in the U.S. to get vaccinations for any other disease?
Common sense tells most people that it is sensible to protect our children against such nasties as measles, mumps, polio, tetanus etc, but there are always a few who believe innoculations can result in undesired reactions or long term effects and refuse to have their kids vaccinated.
In Canada, I understand that no vaccinations are mandatory, though it may be that schools would question you long and hard before admitting a child who had the potential to infect others.
So one person's "common sense" is another persons "stupidity". Of course you recommend such vaccinations. Of course you make them freely available, but that should not take away the parents right to choose.
Just my 2 pennies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lostinthestates
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Location: Bethlehem, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| You need to be vaccinated actually before you become sexually active as it becomes useless afterwards! And it is a good thing as anybody who is sexually active can catch this virus (even when using a condom). Approx. 70% of all sexually active people actually have this virus but nobody knows about it. It can (but might not) lead to cervical cancer which you definetly don't want. So in my view there is only positives! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skylace
Admin
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| maycm wrote: | Personally I would want my child to have the protection this vaccine offers, and sure, why not at 11 or 12? If it lasts for 10 years then at least it’s one less thing to worry about for whenever she becomes sexually active.
My only question on this is whether it is right to legislate such a thing. Is it mandatory in the U.S. to get vaccinations for any other disease?
Common sense tells most people that it is sensible to protect our children against such nasties as measles, mumps, polio, tetanus etc, but there are always a few who believe innoculations can result in undesired reactions or long term effects and refuse to have their kids vaccinated.
In Canada, I understand that no vaccinations are mandatory, though it may be that schools would question you long and hard before admitting a child who had the potential to infect others.
So one person's "common sense" is another persons "stupidity". Of course you recommend such vaccinations. Of course you make them freely available, but that should not take away the parents right to choose.
Just my 2 pennies. |
Yes, there are mandatory vaccines but it can vary state to state I believe. It is madatory in NM for students to get their Hep B vaccine before they can enter junior high school. And every public school in the US requires up-to-date shot records.
As a matter of fact my husband couldn't get his work permit or Green card without a current shot record and there were a few he had to get. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eefanincan
Admin
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| maycm wrote: |
So one person's "common sense" is another persons "stupidity". Of course you recommend such vaccinations. Of course you make them freely available, but that should not take away the parents right to choose. |
That's basically my feelings as well, maycm. I think it's an individual choice, and quite frankly, if I had a young girl of that age, I would likely include the vaccine. Of course it has to be given before being sexually active... the same as you'd give any vaccine before being exposed to that particular illness. The other important thing to remember is that it's actually a series of three vaccines that are administered over a period of time, so parents would need to commit to the series of vaccines and not just one injection.
Here's a webpage that I use at work for reference--- it's from Health Canada, but does mention a bit about the US recommendations.... either way, the info is pretty much the same. ( BTW, when it mentions that the doses are given at 0, 2 and months that doesn't mean at birth, 2 mths of age and 6 mths... it means the initial injection, 2 mths and 6 mths later...... very similar to the Hepatitis B vaccine, if anyone's ever had that.)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
girldorksrule
Arrrrrrr...scurvy!
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Location: Walkin' the plank
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| I don't see that this vaccine is any different that the other ones they require students to get. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maycm
'cheeky banana'
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
I see this story has reared again in the UK, with the government saying that girls of 12 and 13 are to be vaccinated, and same die hards saying it will promote early sexual activity.
I wonder what will happen when an HIV vaccine finally becomes available? Will the same people suggest that kids should not have it for the same reasons, or will everyone be lining up at the earliest opportunity? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Actually, there is another thread on the the risks of vaccines.
I wonder how much mercury is in this new vaccine, and how that mercury may "overflow" a child's ability to absorb it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marcella-FL
Don't make me pull this van over!!!
Joined: 01 May 2006
Location: KMC, Germany
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Why not give the vaccine to males and females? Where do they think the females get it? There was a story here locally of a man who got throat cancer from HPV he picked up ... well you can complete the picture. The point is the females are not the only one at risk ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| On the news today I saw that by giving the girls the vaccine there is an 85% less chance that they'll develop the cancer. Giving it to boys also has an increased effect on that %, but they're not giving it to them - I'm not sure why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skylace
Admin
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| faceless wrote: | | On the news today I saw that by giving the girls the vaccine there is an 85% less chance that they'll develop the cancer. Giving it to boys also has an increased effect on that %, but they're not giving it to them - I'm not sure why. |
Not sure either Face. But I think it's a good idea. It's not a shot that says "Go out and have sex" it's a shot that will protect females when they do start having sex. Not to mention just if those girls wait to have sex until they are married doesn't mean for the rest of their marriage they are protected. It's a precaution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eefanincan
Admin
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Skylace wrote: | | faceless wrote: | | On the news today I saw that by giving the girls the vaccine there is an 85% less chance that they'll develop the cancer. Giving it to boys also has an increased effect on that %, but they're not giving it to them - I'm not sure why. |
Not sure either Face. But I think it's a good idea. It's not a shot that says "Go out and have sex" it's a shot that will protect females when they do start having sex. Not to mention just if those girls wait to have sex until they are married doesn't mean for the rest of their marriage they are protected. It's a precaution. |
I agree, and yet, there will always be people out there who see that it's for a type of sexual infection and think the worse. I'm sure that over time, though, people will start to become more accepting. I know there are a number of people out there who still aren't aware of the HPV-Cancer link and I think if they realized that, they might not be so against it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
Couchtripper - 2005-2015
|
