At last, some sane, rational discussion about Gardasil

Remember Gardasil? Ah, the fun we had... those were the days! :popcorn:

Okay, maybe it is titled "Cancer Sluts", but Slate's Meghan O'Rourke (who obviously never visits GD :P ) tackles the issue in a calm, evenhanded manner:

http://www.slate.com/id/2174850

America declared a "war on cancer" 30 years ago, and yet few cures or vaccines have been discovered since. So when Merck announced that it had a created a drug that could prevent some 70 percent of cervical cancers from developing, you would think Americans would rejoice. Instead, there was a backlash. Last February, Republican Gov. Rick Perry signed an executive order that would have made Texas the first state to mandate the vaccination of schoolgirls against HPV, the sexually transmitted virus that is a frequent cause of cervical cancer. He promptly came under fierce attack. The Texas Legislature expressed its deep reservations about the vaccine, and the media reported that Perry had received a campaign contribution from Merck prior to signing the order. Ultimately, the order was vetoed by the legislature. Earlier this year, 24 states were contemplating making Gardasil—as the cervical-cancer vaccine is known—a mandatory vaccination for young women. Today, only one state, Virginia, has such a law, and it leaves a loophole for parents to opt out.

In one sense, this reluctance seems understandable. Merck is the same company that made headlines in 2004 for failing to disclose that its painkiller Vioxx raised the risk of cardiac arrest and stroke in patients. Gardasil is a brand-new drug, and the company has conducted only limited testing on it. Though the pre-release studies suggest it is highly efficacious, the vaccine's long-term side effects are not fully known. What's more, the vaccination comprises three painful shots, at an estimated cost of $360. Given all this, it is hard to blame parents who resist putting their daughters on the drug's front line, preferring to wait until more is known about it.

Much less understandable, though, is the position taken by many opponents: namely, that a cervical-cancer vaccination would "promote promiscuity" among teenage girls. Implicit in this argument is the assumption that good girls don't get cervical cancer; only "loose" ones do—and they may get what they deserve. Earlier this year, State Sen. George Runner of California told the Los Angeles Times that American money would be much better spent on other types of vaccines, since cervical cancer is a result of lifestyle choices, rather than bad genetic luck.

This view involves a hefty dose of ignorance, as well as a dollop of old-fashioned magical thinking. As any doctor can tell you, it takes only one sexual contact to contract a strain of HPV that can lead to cervical cancer. The CDC reports that at least 50 percent of Americans are infected with HPV over the course of their lives, and a whopping 80 percent of American women are infected by age 50. Admittedly, the chances are slim that HPV would lead to cervical cancer: Only a small portion of HPV infections become cancerous. Still, according to the National Cancer Institute, roughly 11,000 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer this year in the United States. Nearly 3,700 women will die. If you are one of those 3,700 women, you might feel that a vaccine could have changed everything. And—contrary to Runner's insinuations—you needn't be a slut to be among them: You could have married a guy who slept with just one other girl. Or, of course, you could be one of the approximately 13 percent of American women who, according to a 2003 study, are or will be a victim of rape over the course of their lives.

3... 2... 1... let the cool, reflective, low-key discussion begin!

:popcorn:

1) Woman-haters who hate to see those hard-earned pharmaceutical dollars go to a women's health issue;

2) Right-wing fundie whackjobs who are terrified that women actually, *gasp*, have sex;

3) The usual anti-vaccine crowd;

and

4) A very small group of people (mostly women from what I've seen) who are legitimately concerned about a new drug being "tested" on a generation of young girls and women who may end up suffering for it.

Number 4 is the only one that I can understand to some degree, yet most of the detractors fall into the other 3 groups.

it is pretty weird to be allied (sort of) with the above whackjobs 1-3. My position, then and now: make it available, but not yet mandatory. Apparently this is not possible in Texas -- they will only pay for what's mandatory. Hence, the brouhaha down there.

I actually fall into #4, but have been treated as if I belong to one of the other groups. I don't want my daughter to be the one who this thing is tested on. Like many of the other spectacular drug problems we've had in the past, I don't think this one has been tested thoroughly enough. Remember Delalutin or Thalidomide?

Just as a disclaimer, yes, I do know that those were drugs and this is a vaccine. But I'm not getting her this shot right now. And I'm very much against mandating it, as I don't think it's right for the government to force parents to put their children up as guinea pigs. Especially not with a company like Merck. And, right now, insurance isn't always covering it, so it can be expensive for parents to vaccinate their daughters. Before she begins to have sex, maybe I will discuss it with her and offer her the choice.

Also as a disclaimer, I don't think that parents who choose to get this vaccination are stupid, bad, awful or anything else. I just think they made a different choice than my husband and I did.

I have two older daughters as well, 20 and 18, but they are already sexually active and my understanding is that it really needs to happen before then. They are old enough to make their own decision, though.

i'm not anti-vaccine, i just don't want her to be a field-test subject.