OPINION & EDITORIAL
HPV vaccine begs question: ‘Why not?’
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Sara Biersteker:
- Gun screening leaves dangerous loopholes (October 10, 2007)
- HPV vaccine begs question: 'Why not?' (October 1, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Despite discourse, vaccine safeguards (September 28, 2006)
- Denying kids HPV vaccine dangerous (March 15, 2007)
- HPV shot mandate vital (February 8, 2007)
- WHO owes Indonesia bird flu protection (February 9, 2007)
- Diagnosing vaccination blame (October 19, 2004)
Share This:
by Sara Biersteker
Monday, October 1, 2007
It seemed to me that the majority of women on campus would have been vaccinated for HPV, the Human Papillomavirus. I was obviously aware that there would be those who had not received the vaccine. However, I wasn't concerned until I heard the following statement from a Univesity of Wisconsin sophomore: "I haven't gotten it yet. I just haven't made it a priority." Unfortunately, the concerns do not end there. The growing controversy over giving Gardasil, the HPV vaccine, to young girls is a prime example of the ongoing war between morality and well-being. The drug has been proven to protect against cervical cancer, making it difficult to come up with a reason not to get vaccinated. The raw numbers speak for themselves. According to the Center for Disease Control, by age 50, 80 percent of women will have contracted genital HPV and as of now, 20 million in the United States alone are infected with the virus. It can be passed on through genital-to-genital contact or from mother to child. Although there is no known cure for HPV, the recently released and heavily advertised drug Gardasil can effectively protect women against cervical cancer directly caused by HPV. If given to females before they become sexually active, the vaccine proves to defend against all four of the strands of HPV that lead to cervical cancer. If administered after sexual activity ensues, however, the drug's effectiveness weakens as it only protects against the strands that have not already been contracted. For this reason, it is also recommended that the drug be administered to girls as young as nine to ensure sexual activity has not yet occurred. Many argue that vaccination at such a young age seems outrageous because the drug promotes an unsafe approach to sexual activity. "On one hand [the vaccine] will prevent cancer. On the other hand it might send a message that says,’Sex is OK,'"Caidi, a junior at UW said. However, at age nine, children barely know what sex means, let alone engage in it. The belief that sex will ensue after the vaccine is administered is simply unreasonable. If children are aware the drug is protecting them from cancer and have no conception of it as contraception, there is no reason the drug would lead to sexual activity in children. The earlier children are vaccinated, the more effective the drug proves to be. For those already sexually active before the vaccination is administered, critics may say the amount of sexual activity will rise. But how will one vaccine lead to having more sex? With the existence of so many harmful STDs, one vaccine is not going to make people think, "I'm protected against HPV, time for unprotected sex!" This drug is an advancement intended to benefit women's health and should be treated as such. It is as simple as this: The drug prevents cervical cancer, so vaccinate yourself. However, the method of advertising the drug does need some changes. Gardasil's advertising campaign is headed by the "One Less" slogan. After viewing brief shots of empowered women all wearing the words "one less" on their clothing, the viewer is left thinking, "One less what?" Many are confused about what HPV is and how it leads to cervical cancer. One UW sophomore stated, "I think the power of the press overtakes the lack of research on the long-term effects. I feel it caused me to fall into the trap of following the press. So I got the vaccine." However, she later went on to say, "Everyone gets cancer now. It makes me feel better to know that I am doing everything I can to protect myself." Protecting yourself is exactly this drug's intended purpose. However, with a lack of information from Gardasil, women still don't understand that taking the vaccine could be a life or death decision when considering the possibility of cervical cancer, which leads to 18 percent of cancer deaths in women per year. If Gardasil was marketed by showing the public how much more important it is to protect against cancer rather than worry about the numbers and ages of sexually-active people, it would be clear that human welfare is more important than poorly argued moral objections in this case. If the research around Gardasil proves to be effective over the long-term, there is no excuse not to get vaccinated. The argument that the drug promotes a promiscuous lifestyle does not hold any logical reasoning. Every woman, virgin or not, should have this protection. With as many deaths from cancer in America as there are, protecting yourself from a disease should not be a debate — it should be a given. Sara Biersteker (Biersteker@wisc.edu) is a sophomore studying English.
Anonymous (October 1, 2007 @ 9:22am):
Personally, I'm pro-cervical cancer.
Anonymous (October 1, 2007 @ 10:44am):
Great follow-up on Wade's original article last semester.
Anonymous (October 1, 2007 @ 11:27am):
Great article. I also think it would be important to note that there are ongoing clinical trials to see if the vaccine proves effective in men. Though these arent complete, the data looks promising enough that some doctors have been issuing the vaccine for men as well. Also, there is increasing evidence linking the HPV that the vaccine blocks to throat cancer. If this is the case, and the vaccine gets aproved for throat cancer prevention, then hopefully the anti-sex zealots will permanently stay in their hole on the vaccine issue, and it will be administered to all.
Anonymous (October 1, 2007 @ 12:16pm):
You have to introduce these things when the anti-sex zealots are out scoring drugs and male prostitutes.
Anonymous (October 1, 2007 @ 1:09pm):
I am a pediatric nurse and quite shocked at the immaturity and lack of education of some of you. Tell me please how do you think this vaccine works? It is a purified derivative of a molecule that looks like HPV..ah,duh ladies and gents the research does not show yet that the "vaccine" is effective. This vaccine is not a true vaccine and anyone who places themselves at risk by getting the shot places themselves at risk for heart disease, death and Guillain-Barre syndrome. Research is not done yet with this drug thus those who want to be guinea pigs "GO AHEAD" but leave your opinions to yourself. True healthcare involves being knowledgable about these drugs. Never should this be mandated. If you don't believe me check out www.nvic.org. Oh yes, and did you know that promiscuous lifestyles and birth control pills raise your risk of contracting HPV by 95%!!
Anonymous (October 1, 2007 @ 1:41pm):
I agree with the above comment from the nurse. My doctor actually told me that I shouldn't get the shot for those reasons.
Anonymous (October 1, 2007 @ 2:26pm):
Oh yes, and did you know that promiscuous lifestyles and birth control pills raise your risk of contracting HPV by 95%!!
Don't forget smoking. Wear a condom.
Anonymous (October 1, 2007 @ 2:31pm):
Gabbie Wade already told us denying kids the vaccine is DANDEROUS. When will we ever learn:
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2007/03/15/denying_kids_hpv_vac.php
Anonymous (October 1, 2007 @ 4:31pm):
Right, cause it's not like the FDA mandates testing or anything...
Anonymous (October 1, 2007 @ 4:54pm):
"Oh yes, and did you know that promiscuous lifestyles and birth control pills raise your risk of contracting HPV by 95%!!"
This from a person who claims to be a pediatric nurse?
You're not a nurse. You're a liar.
Anonymous (October 1, 2007 @ 6:25pm):
Oh yes, and did you know that promiscuous lifestyles and birth control pills raise your risk of contracting HPV by 95%!!
Don't forget smoking. Wear a condom.
By the way , condoms do not protect you from this STD. And comments like "promiscuous lifestyles" do not HELP to raise awareness, but add to the "stigma" associated with it now. As a nurse - you should be more conscious of your words and their effect.
Anonymous (October 1, 2007 @ 7:17pm):
http://www.slate.com/id/2174850/fr/rss/ offers a more intelligent, eloquent, and well-balanced version of a similar argument.
Anonymous (October 2, 2007 @ 6:07pm):
To the person who accused the pediatric nurse of being a "liar":
That is a very interesting, though not very sophisticated point of view. Much like, I would say, the point of view of the author of the article. Now that you have accused this nurse of being a liar, might we know exactly upon what you base this judgement? As a practicing physician myself, with post-graduate training in public health and preventive medicine, I find the nurse's statements to be quite in line with the available data. For all of you who believe that somehow the health-care system is going to reduce your risk of risky behavior to zero, a number of you will pay for that error in judgement with your lives. Then you might reflect on who was really lying to you.
Dr. B.
Anonymous (October 8, 2007 @ 7:38pm):
This was interesting to read, since I just completed a synthesis of relevant research on HPV vaccine. The physician and nurse have made Gardasil sound like the Tuskegee Syphillis Experiment.Gardasil is no different than other drugs or vaccines in that it must be FDA approved and have gone through clinical trials. Three major clinical trials have already been done and others are under way. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices apporved the HPV vaccine, which indicates that testing has shown to be effective and safe in a certain population. This may not be effective in the long run but don't try to make it sound as if Gardasil is a hidden conspiracy on the health of women of America, no one at this point is a guinea pig. The vaccine so far has jumped through the same hoops that other vaccines and medications do in order to get approval. HPV also is responsible for penile, vulvar, rectal, head, and neck cancer. This vaccine is meeting major barriers because it has been targeted as a sexual disease vaccine for women (make no mistake if this was a vaccine targeted at males and it stated that it would stop penile cancer or impotence the attention would be positive)instead of as a cancer prevention vaccine. I don't like it when companies, government, groups or individuals try to use scare tactics to to get the public to comply with wants. Nurses and physicians as well as much of the public is aware that any drug lists the possible side effects, GARDASIL is not the only drug with potential side effects. In fact Rofecoxib was removed from the market after it had been used by thousands of people for years. So yes the new vaccine may pan out to have unknown adverse effects but so can any drug. Make an informed search of the pro and cons and decide if you want to take the vaccine based on knowledge of your own research not beacuase some "nurse or physician" states that you are being used as a guinea pig or "OH" there may be side effects.
Anonymous (October 10, 2007 @ 9:45pm):
Dear, what you are advocating is the holding of a gun to heads of parents and telling them that they must do what you want done to their children. That you think you are doing it for the good of those poor children who are being abused by their unloving (right-wing crazies) parents doesn't change anything.
If you wanted I could make the case another way. Studies show that sex without condoms makes women happy (no seriously.) So, here is what I suggest for the good of humanity, Condoms are no longer allowed, from this day forward women must use the depo shot till they are ready to have children(something we should license anyway), and they must get permission to have sex with men who must first be checked for STD's. This will end the spread of STD's while allowing women to live happier healthier life styles. And any woman who doesn't do this should prolly be sterilized because we don't want those kinda people breeding do we? Sound good too you?
r zehr (October 25, 2007 @ 11:17pm):
dear god i hope that was all written in a dry form of sarcasim that i dont understand b/c if you think that the world would be a better place without condoms your an idealist. in addition i am mildly shocked by the comments of the nurse and physician. while i dont doubt your credibility, i am confused by the difference in oppinion of many health care professionals. i am studying the spread and effectiveness of the HPV vaccine for an advanced bio project and had, up until now, not found ANY negative feedback from a medical journal, or the CDC and have found numerous articles written by practicing physicians and researchers alike all of whom spoke adamently about the benefits of vaccination... how can there be such polarization that two ppl condemn the vaccine while the rest of the medical world praises it?
Anonymous (October 22, 2008 @ 11:53am):
I wish I'd never have made my daughter get the shots. I kept worrying that the cons would outweigh the pros but my bestfriend's daughter has HPV and has so many health problems due to it & she may never be able to have children so I thought I should go ahead. Plus our pediatrician pushed us to have the series of shots.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
