Cross-posted at the Ex-expat
For a change it's the Herald's turn to piss me off. The byline telling us that 11 year old girls will be vaccinated against the HPV virus is missing from the online vaccination but I am still annoyed enough to blog about it.
Which perhaps is why the byline is there. It is guaranteed to get conservatives frothing at the mouth while it sounds like nails down a chalk board to liberals like myself.
Mostly because I don't understand why immunizing against a virus that is spread by a certain behaviour would be seen as a government mandate for children to engage in the behaviour. The New Zealand health system vaccinates against a whole host of diseases. Some are vaccinations are given to children to protect them their future self, like for instance Hepatitis B. Which in developed countries like New Zealand is primarily transmitted through intravenous drug use and unprotected sex, two behaviours we don't encourage adults let alone children to partake in. To my knowledge Rubella was until fairly recently only given to 11 year old girls to protect their future children from the disease. Yet I haven't heard of mass cases of 11 year-olds getting pregnant nor hosting heroin parties as a result of their inoculation.
But the thing that pisses me off the most about the 'sex virus' tag is that it is also making judgments about all those who have contracted cervical cancer. The women chose to get it through *shock horror* having sex. I am sure that for the women who suffer from this horrible disease if they had the choice between being protected from the virus that caused their cancer or letting morality dictate medicine in such a matter, they'd choose the vaccine. Moreover consensual sex isn't the only way to transmit STDs. And despite society's best efforts we can't always keep our children safe from the stranger on the street or more likely the 'nice young man' driving her home after a party.
5 comments:
I haven't read much about this but why aren't they vaccinating boys? They are carriers right? Its like saying its ok for boys to go spreading it about. Ok women (as usual) have to deal with the cancer link but why not cover possible carriers too?
You beat me to it, artandmylife. Vaccinate everyone. Any epidemiologists out there?
I've blogged on this- yes, we should be vaccinating boys for everything they're a risk of spreading, even if boys personally don't risk very much at all. HPV is only very rarely symptomatic in men, but most straight men wouldn't want to risk giving their partners a disease that could cause them to get cancer.
HPV is also potentially passed down to kids. So you could get it from your mother or father having sex, not just from you having sex.
Even a perfectly committed woman with just one partner is at significant risk of infection from HPV. We shouldn't let our judgements of people's sexual habits interfere with our feelings over the treatment of health problems. I want people to be well no matter how morally repugnant I find them.
Bloody well said The E-E!
When the local reporting about HPV started over a year ago it didn't seem like our media were going to pick up on the Sex Is Bad line, but sadly they seem to be totally into it now :-(
As to why they don't vaccinate boys, I am only guessing, but I suspect it is because there is always the possibility of a bad reaction to a vaccination, so it makes sense to limit the pool of those vaccinated as much as feasible. As boys can't develop the disease (?) it would be unnecessary to vaccinate them if most girls are vaccinated instead, and you would want most girls to be vaccinated anyway. That would be a non-sexist explanation anyway.
I think one of the major badness things about HPV is that it can turn into cervical cancer, which isn't an issue for boys.
But I'm not sure.
Post a Comment