HPV Vaccine- For or Against It?

Hello all! I know I am not really an active member here on QZ, but I'd like to hear some serious opinions (as I know a great bunch of you are jokesters :P)

I am in college now :D and for my speech class, I am going to be giving a persuasive speech on why preteens, teens, and young adults should be vaccinated with the HPV vaccine to protect against cancers the Human Papilloma Virus can cause.

I'm not sure if it is offered in other places, but here in the States, many people are against it because they say that the government has no right to tell us what to do and that girls have died from it and all these supposed side effects have severely affected girls.

As an actual receiver of the HPV vaccine, my experience has not been bad. The only side effect I got was a sore arm for a few days. My mom had me get all three shots because my family has a history with cancer, including uterine cancer, liver, and lung cancer.

What I'd like to ask all of you is what your thoughts are on the HPV vaccine. Do you think it is dangerous or beneficial? Have any of you ever had it?

Thanks QZers!

I have a sixteen year old daughter and am for the vaccine. If there is some type of protection against even one cancer, and trials have proven it to be safe, I'm good with it. My daughter had no reaction whatsoever. The few 'severe reactions' reported in some girls, as far as I know, were found to be unrelated to the vaccine. Risk is always involved but my own research made me feel the minor risks were worth the benefits.

This vaccine isn't one that's mandatory for school admission and such. It's optional, but strongly recommended by the FDA. Not sure if you're aware of it, but the FDA is now recommending that boys receive it as well.

The biggest argument against this, that I've heard - and the most ridiculous, IMO - is how vaccinating our kids against certain strains of HPV will give them a false sense of security and therefore encourage them to have sex. I think our kids are smarter than that - and hornier than most parents will admit, with or without a vaccine.

Oh goodie a reply! :D
I read about the boys' recommendation! Since they are the ones who are carriers of the virus and there aren't any tests available at the moment, I think they should get it!
It really is stupid how parents think that just because their kid gets it, it means they'll shag everyone they know. I don't think kids are THAT stupid to believe that anyway. I sure as hell wasn't!
It is a means of preventative care to ensure kids won't contract those cancers that the vaccine helps to protect against.
Here in the States, it's mostly those conservative loonies that think the shot will make kids go out and have sex.
I really am glad my mom had me get them!
I'm just sick of people being misinformed about it. Just today some girl said she'd never get it just because one of her friends had a reaction to it. The reactions are rare, just as with any other vaccine. I think more people should look into it to be safe and cancer-free.

I am very much in favour of the vaccination because it protects young women against a very common infection and reduces the risk to get cancer considerably. I really get annoyed when I hear that "the government should not tell us what to do". First of all the vaccination is not mandatory as far as I know and secondly - yes, the government should give advice about measures that can improve public health. Imo it is much more the duty of a government to care about public health than to support the military industry (just to name an example).

In my country many parents do not get vaccination for their children because there is a widespread paranoia about the risks and side effects. Unfortunately, there is not much paranoia about the actual diseases that kill the children and could be avoided and even extinguished if all children were vaccinated. It is not only your own health - it is also the health of other people which should be taken into consideration. I think the public health factor is not emphasized enough when vaccination is discussed.

>here in the States, many people are against it because they say that the government has no right to tell us what to do and that girls have died from it and all these supposed side effects have severely affected girls.

>vaccinating our kids against certain strains of HPV will give them a false sense of security and therefore encourage them to have sex

Just more propaganda from the religious right who don't believe in birth control, and playing the "smaller government" card when it's convenient for them.  Michelle Bachmann has been campaigning on the idea that this vaccine makes people retarded.  She believes praying will fix everything.

Yes, if every person in this world stuck to only one uninfected sexual partner starting tomorrow, STDs would cease to exist a century from now.  But unfortunately, that isn't reality.  Vaccines like this are completely necessary in today's world, and I am completely in favour of it.

It is available in Canada as well, and fortunately we have no real religious right here to parade against it.  It has more or less gone on without incident.

Rick Perry issued an executive order requiring sixth grade girls receive the HPV vaccine in early February of 2007, and he met cancer victim Heather Buchmam while she was lobbying the Texas legislature to uphold the governor’s executive order.

[/QUOTE]

The legislature ultimately ruled against Burcham and Perry and did away with the vaccine mandate," reported ABC.

Rick Perry pocketed over $30,000 in campaign cash from drug company Merck that makes the HPV vaccine he attempted pushing onto Texas schoolgirls, The Washington Post reported.

I haven't had it because its so expensive, but yeah, i think its a good idea.  And if i had a daughter i would probably try to make sure she got it.  I hadn't realised that boys COULD have the vaccine, although it does make sense now that i think of it.  I know some people will react to vaccines, but they are usually a minority.  And the reaction to cancer treatment is a lot stronger.  I know some people who are anti-vaccines, thinking they are just ways for pharmaceutical companies to make money, but surely the companies would actually make more if people got sick and had to buy drugs?  And there is an increase in measles, mumps, tb, etc because parents arent tending to vaccinate as much.

Such a sensitive issue should not be part of an election campaign and there should be recommendations by a medical board and not an executive order by a lobbied politician. As long as there is no actual hazard for the public vaccinations should not be mandatory.

I think it is a matter of education. In countries like Sweden and Finland vaccination is so normal that parents do not even think about it much. Once it is recommended by the government, people simply get the vaccination. As a result dangerous diseases like the measles are virtually non-existent in such countries. Health insurance usually covers vaccination.

Just to clarify, the boys' recommendation comes in part because HPV is associated with several cancers, including rare cancers specific to men and cancer of the throat and other non gender specific malignancies.  I think we'd be on shaky ethical ground if there was an expectation that an individual would take on any risk, however small, solely to benefit others. The benefit to girls is clearer as the vaccine is expected (there are of course no long term studies yet) to prevent cancers in about 1 in 200 women and 1 in 400 men.  Though I don't have any unreasonable fears or objections relating to vaccination programs personally,  and would recommend to my own son that he get vaccinated if Health Canada initiated the program, I wouldn't argue with those who don't choose to vaccinate their boys given the decreased risk/benefit ratio and the fact that the cancers the males would be vulnerable to have a significantly later median age of onset.  It would not be a completely unreasonable decision to decline the still unqualified and unquantified risks of vaccination, even if miniscule,  on a gamble that we'll have a much better handle on cancer in decades to come.

I would not make such a vaccination manfdatory but I do not see why people should not consider the benfit of others in their decision. In my book it is not "ethically shaky" to consider if I might be a health hazard for others because I decided not to get vaccinated. I saw an infant child in my family die of measles because she was too small to get vaccinated and she was infected by a bigger girl whose parents were too paranoid to have her vaccinated. Why is it "ethically shaky ground" to think of other peoples' lives or health? We are talking about infective diseases here.

[QUOTE]

[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b]I saw an infant child in my family die of measles because she was too small to get vaccinated and she was infected by a bigger girl whose parents were too paranoid to have her vaccinated. [/QUOTE]

This disturbs me so much.

Not that I'm singling out the home school community - to which I belong - but within this group is a huge majority of people who refuse to vaccinate their kids for basically the same reasons. Either they're naturalists who never medicate unless THEY have a headache or insomnia or need chemo, or they're conspiracy theorists who believe the government wants to use their kids as guinea pigs. When presented with the argument of others contracting preventable illnesses because they choose to avoid vaccines, they cite the existence of those illnesses as proof vaccines do not work and that eradication of those diseases will never happen, so why should they subject their kids to government toxins. It's truly disturbing.

My mom has a compromised immune system and can easily contract any number of preventable illnesses. We worry for her every day because of unavoidable contact with viruses, then have the added worry of diseases still being spread because of ignorance, arrogance and paranoia. I'm all for the right of choice and would not want mandatory vaccines for our kids. I just wish more people were concerned - and educated - about the benefits and hardships their action/inaction has on society.

[QUOTE]

[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b] I would not make such a vaccination manfdatory but I do not see why people should not consider the benfit of others in their decision. In my book it is not "ethically shaky" to consider if I might be a health hazard for others because I decided not to get vaccinated. I saw an infant child in my family die of measles because she was too small to get vaccinated and she was infected by a bigger girl whose parents were too paranoid to have her vaccinated. Why is it "ethically shaky ground" to think of other peoples' lives or health? We are talking about infective diseases here.
[/QUOTE]
HPV is not the measles, it's a sexually transmitted infection.   People are responsible for their own sexual health.  To me there is no scenario where at no benefit to themselves half the population could be expected to receive a shot, and experience the sore arm and the fever and nausea and tiny but real potential for more severe reactions solely to protect the health of a representative of the other half of the population that for one reason or another didn't bother with the process themselves- there is no scenario like that that shouldn't raise a conversation about ethics and personal vs. social responsibility.   This situation specifically would explode though a lens of hypersensitive gender politics, at lest it would here, and likely have a chilling effect on issues where the disadvantages of women are still very real.  It would certainly immediately politicize an issue that should be decided on nothing but scientific facts and evidence.  Thankfully young women are now able to unilaterally protect themselves against this infection with potentially devastating consequences.  And because this scenario is hypothetical, young men will soon be able to choose to protect themselves too. Everybody wins.

Here in Argentina the vaccine is free for all 11-year-old girls.

I haven't researched about the risks and side effects but I'm not against vaccination if it prevents such a serious disease.

[QUOTE]

[b]GratefulFan wrote: [/b] Just to clarify, the boys' recommendation comes in part because HPV is associated with several cancers, including rare cancers specific to men and cancer of the throat and other non gender specific malignancies.  I think we'd be on shaky ethical ground if there was an expectation that an individual would take on any risk, however small, solely to benefit others. The benefit to girls is clearer as the vaccine is expected (there are of course no long term studies yet) to prevent cancers in about 1 in 200 women and 1 in 400 men.  Though I don't have any unreasonable fears or objections relating to vaccination programs personally,  and would recommend to my own son that he get vaccinated if Health Canada initiated the program, I wouldn't argue with those who don't choose to vaccinate their boys given the decreased risk/benefit ratio and the fact that the cancers the males would be vulnerable to have a significantly later median age of onset.  It would not be a completely unreasonable decision to decline the still unqualified and unquantified risks of vaccination, even if miniscule,  on a gamble that we'll have a much better handle on cancer in decades to come.[/QUOTE]

hm -- it would be shaky ground to [i]enforce[/i] it for guys if there were absolutely no benefits to them maybe.  (maybe)  But even still, its the greatest good for the greatest number.  If a guy being vaccinated prevented 3 girls from contracting it, then yes, i think its a worthwhile risk.  I see what you mean, but i don't think its completely right to say you cant expect people to take risks for other people.  They would be preventing themselves getting the virus in the first place, so there is benefit to them.  I'm trying and failing to think of an example where someone is expected to take a risk for other ppls benefit.  I guess bone marrow transplants, or live organ donation, but both of those are usually for specific people, and usually people known to the donor.  I do know some home carers who get the flu vaccine because of the impact flu would have on the person they care for, when the person they care for refuses to get the vaccine, but again, that is for the benefit of a specific person.

It's not like I'm getting my prick sucked every night, so I have to say : I don't give a fuck, and I hope anyone who is engaging in this behaviour catches cancer.