Article for discussion 20-26 Feb

I think it sounds like it has the potential to be really good. I don't see it as "a licence to be promiscuous" but rather more in the preventative line like the vaccine against rubella... AFAIK, a child who has rubella (the disease that is) should recover, but a pregnant woman who catches it stands a pretty good chance of her unborn baby developing birth defects - which is why we're all vaccinated against it at an early age.

I am with Maya on this one what are the long term side effects, and how well has it been tested. I also wondered, the statistics they give, how many of the women that die did not have regular smear tests?

My Mum had pre-cancerous cervical growths and so had a hysterectomy at 36. Because of this I am sooooo obsessive about making sure I have regular smears.

I wonder it's worth putting more money into promoting the importance of smear tests? I mean, as Sarah says, how many of the women who die from cervical cancer aren't having regular smears.

But then I guess at the same time it comes down to the lesser of two evils. I was iffy about the Meningitis vaccine because it is so new, but we decided that the risks were minor compared to what might happen if she actually caught the disease, so if you look at it that way then the cancer vaccine is a good idea.

But I'm really on the fence on this one. When Mona got her first period at 8 they wanted us to put her on the pill to regulate them, but I wouldn't allow it just in case it affected her fertility later on. I would hate to make a decision like that for one of my girls only to find out years later that it has caused her to become infertile.

Just can't decide either way

I also think that while it absurd for people of our age (and maybe over 16) to think that a vaccination will be an excuse to be promiscuous as ridiculous, but I can't say the same about younger and more immature girls.

Perhaps they should hold the vaccine off until the legal age of sex? (Though I know many people have sex before then) or maybe at least a couple of years older than 11. Can an 11 year old really grasp the concept of being protected from one type of STI but still having to use protection? I think there would be a feeling of invincibility among them. I guess it all depends on how the information is given to the 11 year old. Providing the information is relayed with the emphasis on preventing a virus, and not on the fact that it is sexually transmitted, then they might not fall into the trap of thinking they are protected from all sorts of STIs.

Edited by nikkiwhyte

As far as i can understand - from not only this but we were talking about it with a few nurses the other day - is that it doesn't give an excuse to be promiscuous at all! It is created to target Human Papilloma Virus which can be linked to cervical cancer - it's just taking out one of the risk factors, same as most vaccines etc - as it said in the article, Eighty per cent of women have an HPV infection at some point in their lives, usually without symptoms, and it usually clears up naturally. i'm pretty sure 80% of us would not rate ourselves or each other as promiscous, to be able to prevent an infection that can lead to health problems would be pretty good really, considering it is quite common. But is not the be-all and end-all of it, there's no guarantee - NOTHING is ever 100% foolproof.

Cervical screening is just that as well- a screening tool, going with the questions about smears etc. , there are many types of cancers and some can move pretty quickly!, and while cervical screening can pick up low grade changes to cells, and help to maybe stop them developing into something worse, sometimes our bodies are just not our friends. According to the statistics from the national cervical screening programme - without screening, it is estimated 1 in 90 women will develop cervical cancer, and 1 out of 200 will die from it. with 3 yrly screening 1 out of 570 will develop it (lower figures cos screening can pick up changes to cells before it actually gets to anywhere close to cancer stage) and only 1 out of 1280 will die. hope this helps. just my opinion and a little info i have gained in the last week or so.

Have they been testing this drug for 15 years? It said something about the professor that developed it in 1991, so maybe thats how long their study was?? Anyway, I think it is a great idea and in no way a 'license to promiscuity'. It is in no way promoted as being a preventative to STI's, just one virus which happens to be caught that way. Getting it done with the last lot of childhood vaccines is probably the easiest way to ensure the majority receive it. I remember getting my vacs at 11 but was never told what they were for or anything, just a part of life i thought! I didnt really care, so maybe 11 is better thatn later (say 14 or 15) when girls are more likely to think of it as protection from STI's and more likely to be having sex.

I kinda am inclined to agree with Aimee there. I have no idea what I was being immunised for at age 11. Apparently it wasn't my choice. So yeah, I guess parents can make the same call about the HPV vaccine and the kids won't even know (or care) that is has anything to do with sex!!!

Also a good point about being 14 or 15. Probably more likely to be taken out of context at that age than 11.

(So yeah, massive contradicting my first posts.. but ah well...)

Edited by nikkiwhyte

the main idea of giving it at age 11 is so that the girl is not (or is hopefully is very unlikely to have been) sexually active, therefore it would be given before the girl has had any chances for exposure to HPV which is sexually transmitted - left until age 14 - 15, even though you wouldn't like to think it - a fair few girls have had sex, or at least mucked around a little and could already have been exposed to HPV- therefore it would be TOO late to give a vaccination against it then.

I am with you thought Emma, I just don't know if there has been any long term testing.

Maybe I will just have boys and it wont matter

I'd give Hannah the vaccine. I've done so many other things without thinking... what's one more?