The New York Times reports that a new, highly-effective cervical cancer vaccine could be available as early as next year:
If it were widely used, the vaccine could save many lives. Worldwide, there are about 500,000 new cases of cervical cancer a year, and 290,000 deaths. Most of the cases and most of the deaths occur in poorer countries where women do not have regular Pap tests, which can detect cancers or precancers early enough for them to be cured. In the United States, where Pap tests are common, 10,400 new cases are expected in 2005, and 3,700 deaths.
“A lot of people are really excited,” said Dr. Deborah Saslow, director of breast and gynecological cancer at the American Cancer Society. “This is the first major cancer prevention vaccine. The potential, particularly in the undeveloped world, particularly if they can overcome the logistics and get the vaccine to those women, could be enormous. It could prevent 70 percent to 90 percent of those deaths.”
Sounds great, right? I mean, the fact that we have a vaccine to prevent any kind of cancer is fantastic. Getting vaccinated should be a no-brainer.
But of course, there remain those in our society who seem to operate without brains.
“The best way to prevent HPV is through abstinence,” said Bridget Maher, an analyst at the Family Research Council, a conservative group that expects to campaign against making the vaccines mandatory for entering school. “I see potential harm in giving this vaccine to young women.”
Right. As opposed to the potential harm of getting cancer.
I assume Maher means that, by receiving this vaccine, 12-year-old girls will suddenly morph into sex-craved freaks — because look, mom, no cancer! As opposed to the minions of teenage girls who currently remain abstinent solely to avoid cervical cancer. Right.
Asked this week about the HPV vaccine, Scott Phelps of the Abstinence and Marriage Education Partnership cited a recent letter in which he raised concerns about giving the vaccine to youngsters.
“We’re all for preventing cancer, but is this really the way to do it – by shooting this stuff into our kids?” he asked.
Well… yeah. That’s how we prevent diseases like mumps, measles, diptheria, hepatitis A and B, polio, tetanus, even the flu. I think most reasonable people would say that if we can prevent cancer too, we should go for it.
But then, we aren’t talking about reasonable people.
“What are the side effects in these young children? And are they told what the vaccine is for? I’d be interested to listen in on that discussion.”
Phelps said issues like the HPV vaccine were a reminder that “we do what we do [that is, promote abstinence] so that these types of ‘solutions’ will not be necessary.”
In no society, at no point in history, has every member of the population been abstinent until marriage. Never ever ever. It’s surely not going to happen now, and it’s not worth sacrificing women’s lives for a misguided political ideal.
Leslee Unruh, president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, said in an article on the group’s website that the money spent on developing the vaccines and which parents would have to pay for it “would be much safer spent on abstinence education.”
Except that, well, it wouldn’t. And here’s why: This vaccine actually works. It could prevent 70-90 percent of deaths from cervical cancer. And sure, abstinence works… until it doesn’t.
Now, to be fair, it seems like the religious folks who are actually doctors may be more supportive of this measure:
Asked for the views of America’s largest faith-based physicians’ body, Christian Medical and Dental Associations associate executive director Dr. Gene Rudd said this week that unless currently unknown medical risk/benefit problems arose, he would not oppose an HPV vaccine and doubted many of his Christian colleagues would either.
“Rather, I would welcome a development that would greatly reduce the disease and death caused by HPV,” said Rudd, an Ob/Gyn physician.
“While we should be concerned about healthcare decision-making that could encourage poor sexual choices, I do not see a clear linkage between the decision to accept this vaccine for a six year-old child, or even age 12, and subsequent sexual decisions,” he added. “The vaccine decision will likely be made by the parent.”
Rudd also pointed out the risk of marrying a spouse who was already infected.
“Even parents who teach and expect their child to be virtuous should allow for the possibility that their child might someday marry a person who had previously acquired HPV,” he said. “We would want protection in that circumstance.”
Unfortunately, though, it’s the politicans who will get the make the call on this one.
But convincing doctors may prove much easier than swaying state officials to require vaccination before youngsters can attend school, as Merck intends to do. The potential for controversy is so great that one New Jersey health official said he does not want to get involved.
“I don’t think we’d require the schools to mandate something like this,” said Eddy Bresnitz, deputy commissioner of the state Department of Health and Senior Services. “I’m sure the battle will be huge, and I’m not sure it’s a battle we should be fighting.”
Preventing women from getting cancer is not a battle we should be fighting? It’s shit like this that makes me channel Twisty and blame the patriarchy. And why, may I ask, does the deputy commission of the state Department of Health and Senior Services have any control over what kinds of vaccinations pre-teen girls get?
If thousands of guys were dying every year from a sex-related cancer, you can bet that a vaccine would be welcomed with open arms; there would be none of this “tell them to be abstinent” bullshit. Those who oppose this vaccine have seriously misguided moral compasses.