Whilst at the pool today I overheard a conversation between two women about the new HPV vaccine being offered to girls from 12 years old through schools. The women were discussing whether their daughters should have the vaccine because a friend had commented that 'it sends out the signal that they are promiscuous'. I got quite angry about it - though not angry enough to turn around and say anything - because in my mind it does no such thing.
My mother has a different view - she was disturbed when we lived in Scotland and my sister was called up for a Rubella vaccination, aged 10. The nurse explained that they had had a few instances of pregnancy at aged 10 or younger. She can see why some mothers would have reservations.
Maybe it's because I have a son not a daughter but I would like to think that I would ensure that my daughter had this injection because of the obvious benefits to her future health - just as I decided to go ahead with getting my son immunised when there was all that fuss about the MMR. Obviously I wouldn't be condoning teenage sex but I don't think that should be a stumbling block to protecting future health.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Very wise not to say anything - they would probably have got their children to throw more toys at you if you had spoken out.
I guess everyone has to make up their own minds. The only thing I would say to people who take that viewpoint (with which, like you, I do not agree) is that not everyone has the opportunity to wait and decide when they will first have sex, some of us have it thrust upon us (poor use of terminology there!!!)before we are ready. And in those situations if you are saved from just one thing (HPV) then it is something.
This jab sends out no signals re promiscuity. Obviously it makes sense to do it to everyone at the same age and so an age is chosen when most girls will not yet have become sexually active. Presumably parents could elect to have their daughters innoculated at a later age but would probably have to pay to have it done privately and in all probability would forget to do so.
I wont be allowing my daughters to be getting the HPV jab at that age.
it does not protect agains ALL strains of the virus, just 4 strains and only 2 of those strains can cause cancer. It has been linked to deaths, 3 girsl were reported to have died after getting it, 1700 people have been reported having "adverse reactions" to it.
i will make darn sure to teach my girls (and the boys too) about safe sex, properl care of them selves, make sure they get their Smear tests even if they have to pay private to get them more frequent than the 3 Yearly the UK women get on the NHS.
i dont see the point in injecting my pre/borderline pubecent girls with hormones adn other such stuff when we have no idea of the long term effects of this vax, its only been around for a few years. i do vax my kids but thsi is one i do not agree with and will be refusing for my girls, when they reach 18 and decide to get it i will help them come to an informed decision.
I think what angered me most at the time was the comment about perceived promiscuity to be the stumbling block not the valid reasons that yarn has put forward.
Yep, I'm with Yarn on this one although, I agree that perceived promiscuity is a poor arguement for not having your kids vaccinated.
I can't allow my kids to be injected with vaccinations for everything under the sun...there are too many instances of things going wrong, vaccines being released to the market without proper testing or with the results of testing being covered up, allegedly for the good of the general public.
In this case, yes, it's a dreadful illness but it can be treated with prompt diagnosis and medicine will only get better in this area. My own daughter is only 2 so maybe there will even be a cure for cancer by the time she is old enough to worry about such things.
Post a Comment