Article for discussion 20-26 Feb
Printed From: OHbaby!
Category: General Chat
Forum Name: General Chat
Forum Description: For mums, dads, parents-to-be, grandparents, friends -- you name it! And you name the topic you want to chat about!
URL: https://www.ohbaby.co.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1592
Printed Date: 02 October 2025 at 10:21am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Article for discussion 20-26 Feb
Posted By: Maya
Subject: Article for discussion 20-26 Feb
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 3:39pm
|
http://www.ohbaby.co.nz/default.asp?categoryID=8&subcategoryID=154 - Possible Vaccine for Cervical Cancer
What do you think? -------------  Maya Grace (28/02/03)
 (02/01/06)
The Gremlins:Sienna Marie & Mercedes Kailah (14/10/06)
Lil miss:Chiara Louise Chloe (09/07/08)
Her ladyship:Rosalia Sophie Anais (18/06/12)
|
Replies:
Posted By: daikini
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 4:07pm
|
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. ------------- Becca, mum of 2 girls & 3 boys |
Posted By: Maya
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 4:18pm
|
I agree that to me it's not a license to be promiscuous, my concern is what are the long-term consequences going to be? Will it affect fertility, or cause endometriosis, or affect hormone levels? I just wonder how well it has been tested.
------------- Maya Grace (28/02/03)
(02/01/06)
The Gremlins:Sienna Marie & Mercedes Kailah (14/10/06)
Lil miss:Chiara Louise Chloe (09/07/08)
Her ladyship:Rosalia Sophie Anais (18/06/12)
|
Posted By: Sarah Beth
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 5:21pm
|
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? ------------- "> 
|
Posted By: robyn
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 8:18pm
|
My sister has just been told this week she has cervical cancer and if this vacination had of been around when she was young then it could have stopped a lot of pain now! I also dont see it as an excuse to sleep around and if it does then isnt saving a life better than saving a reputation. I dont see why they need to even put it in that light, its not stopping STD's it's a life saving vacination!! (sorry obviously feel very strongly about it at the moment) Surely it would have to have been strongly tested before they would allow it to be given to people. Its probably been in the pipe line for years, you just never hear about what they are working on behind the scenes. ------------- KOBE born 19 March 2004 http://www.TickerFactory.com/"> 
|
Posted By: Maya
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 8:29pm
|
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  ------------- Maya Grace (28/02/03)
(02/01/06)
The Gremlins:Sienna Marie & Mercedes Kailah (14/10/06)
Lil miss:Chiara Louise Chloe (09/07/08)
Her ladyship:Rosalia Sophie Anais (18/06/12)
|
Posted By: nikkitheknitter
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 8:30pm
|
Very good question to raise about the smear tests Sarah.
I'd hope that due to the fact that they were participating in the study they would have regular smear tests as part of that? I think I support the release of the vaccination. But long term side effects do concern me. I hope also that if the vaccinations do become widely available that they won't be seen as a way to get out of smear testing. I think enough women already try and sneak out of smears when they are vital for early detection of abnormal cells. |
Posted By: nikkitheknitter
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 8:33pm
|
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. |
Posted By: robyn
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 8:56pm
|
Thats what I think too Nikki. I didnt even know it could be a sexually transmitted disease until this has all come out, I think it depends on the way it is promoted as such. And I see your point Emma about making that decision for your child but at least she will be alive even if infertile and think how many other life altering decision we have to make on thier behalf right from when they are conceived. ------------- KOBE born 19 March 2004 http://www.TickerFactory.com/">
|
Posted By: mum2paris
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 10:13pm
|
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. ------------- Janine and her 2 cool chicks, Paris & Ayja 
|
Posted By: mum2paris
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 10:20pm
in saying that there's a heap of reasons why women don't go for smears - and even though the register chases them up constantly - in the end it's the woman's choice, no one can go to their house and force them to get one done. the way i see it is hey, it's 15 minutes, not even that, you have much worse happening down there when you are having kids, and it's only every 3 yrs for those with no detected changes. if you don't wanna do it for you, do it for you kids, so you are around for them and also because you can be a role model for them, - if you would hope your daughter takes responsibility for her health in the future, you have to show her you can take care of yours now. ------------- Janine and her 2 cool chicks, Paris & Ayja
|
Posted By: aimeejoy
Date Posted: 22 February 2006 at 1:13pm
|
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. ------------- Aimee Hannah 22/10/05 Greer 11/02/08 |
Posted By: fairsk8
Date Posted: 22 February 2006 at 4:13pm
|
I agree with the vaccine but have some issues about when they want to give it. I know of many young girls who are sexually active so agree that 11 is probably a good age. But I think the decision should not only be up to the parents of the girls but the girls themselves and at the age of 11 how are they suppose to make a big decision like that. I am not saying that 11 year olds can't think for themselves but just that it is a big decision to make and they may not fully understand as things like cervical cancer are not talked about within schools. They haven't even been told about STI's and that age. So I think that if the vaccine is to be given at that age well then information needs to given to the girls to help them understand and be able to make a well informed decision. ------------- http://www.bump-and-beyond.com/"> 
|
Posted By: nikkitheknitter
Date Posted: 23 February 2006 at 11:31am
|
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...) |
Posted By: aimeejoy
Date Posted: 23 February 2006 at 12:25pm
|
lolol Nikki - thats what discussion is all about! ------------- Aimee Hannah 22/10/05 Greer 11/02/08 |
Posted By: mum2paris
Date Posted: 23 February 2006 at 10:00pm
|
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. ------------- Janine and her 2 cool chicks, Paris & Ayja
|
Posted By: Maya
Date Posted: 23 February 2006 at 10:12pm
I'm liking my patch of fence, although I'm getting splinters...
I still can't decide either way. If I had to make the decision for myself then I would go for it, but I just worry about making that decision for Maya. Does that make sense, or am I just being an OP Mum (Over protective Mum - not good apparently!) ------------- Maya Grace (28/02/03)
(02/01/06)
The Gremlins:Sienna Marie & Mercedes Kailah (14/10/06)
Lil miss:Chiara Louise Chloe (09/07/08)
Her ladyship:Rosalia Sophie Anais (18/06/12)
|
Posted By: Sarah Beth
Date Posted: 24 February 2006 at 12:16pm
|
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 ------------- ">
|
Posted By: mum2paris
Date Posted: 24 February 2006 at 9:53pm
|
i like this topic.... ------------- Janine and her 2 cool chicks, Paris & Ayja
|
Posted By: nikkitheknitter
Date Posted: 24 February 2006 at 10:08pm
|
I'd give Hannah the vaccine. I've done so many other things without thinking... what's one more?
|
Posted By: fairsk8
Date Posted: 25 February 2006 at 10:41am
|
My partner and I had a big talk about this topic last night and he thought I was being stupid and that it doesn't matter that at age 11 they won't understand because they do not understand when they have their other shots what they are for apart from if they don't have them they could get really sick. So i said to him that we will just have to have all boys because I don't feel overly comfortable with making that big a decision for my daughter should I ever have a daughter. So I am with you sarah just hoping for all boys. ------------- http://www.bump-and-beyond.com/">
|
Posted By: aimeejoy
Date Posted: 25 February 2006 at 11:34am
|
I would give Hannah this vaccination if it became another mainstream one, added to the schedule. I personally dont see how it is much different to the MENZ-B one, its a relatively new vacc and we dont really know the loooong term effects of that one either. ------------- Aimee Hannah 22/10/05 Greer 11/02/08 |
Posted By: jax
Date Posted: 25 February 2006 at 12:40pm
|
I've heard and read a lot about this issue, and as far as medical advances go it sounds good. However, some of my concerns would also lie with just how well it has actually been tested. That aside (and I could be VERY wrong here admittedly), I thought it was just that women who are sexually promiscuous have a higher *risk* of developing HPV, rather than sexual activity being the outright cause for someone who develops it. I can imagine that the definition of 'sexual promiscuity' would be highly contentious anyhow - my next question would be just how is that standard established? Anyway, I probably need to watch this develop and contemplate things a bit more, before I can come to a definite decision as to whether or not I'd be happy with my child having it. At this point in time it is likely that I would, but as I mentioned earlier in the post, my concern lies with just how well it has been tested etc. ------------- Jacquie - Mama to Erin, 13.07.06 - Chief Cat Chaser & Marmite Sammie Eater 
Love many, trust few, harm none. ~Anon~ |
Posted By: nikkitheknitter
Date Posted: 25 February 2006 at 1:03pm
|
Well at least we have 10 to 11 years before we have to decide whether our kids should have this. By then they should have found whether there are any long term effects?!?
(Anyway, that's what I'm clinging to!) |
Posted By: lizzle
Date Posted: 25 February 2006 at 3:28pm
|
I think that you can also be born with HPV from your mother? Not sure but one of my friends has it, and was told that it may not have come from sexual activity.
And the "license to be promiscious", what a load of crap! It's like the pill and stuff. Who gets an injection for contraception and then says "well, off to sleep with as many people as possible. yippee!" ??- very few! Most people are a lot more sensible than that! |
Posted By: fairsk8
Date Posted: 25 February 2006 at 4:32pm
|
Yes it can be passed on to you by your mum. When born because the baby passes thru the infected area. Once you have HPV there is really no way of getting rid of it, it stays in your system. ------------- http://www.bump-and-beyond.com/">
|
Posted By: nikkitheknitter
Date Posted: 25 February 2006 at 8:54pm
Yeah, I can't really blame my promiscuity on any form of contraception.. it happened anyway 
|
Posted By: Maya
Date Posted: 26 February 2006 at 8:27am
|
Good point on the time thing Nikki - by the time our kids get to 11, the kids having it now should have some idea if there are any side effects. ------------- Maya Grace (28/02/03)
(02/01/06)
The Gremlins:Sienna Marie & Mercedes Kailah (14/10/06)
Lil miss:Chiara Louise Chloe (09/07/08)
Her ladyship:Rosalia Sophie Anais (18/06/12)
|
Posted By: Sarah Beth
Date Posted: 26 February 2006 at 8:41am
|
I agree Nikki, very good point on the time thing, I didn't even think about that ------------- ">
|
Posted By: nikkitheknitter
Date Posted: 26 February 2006 at 8:19pm
Sucks for those with older kids tho 
Maybe they'll wait a few years anyway for putting it on the regular Imms list |
Posted By: daikini
Date Posted: 27 February 2006 at 11:15am
|
And if they wait a few years, then Kiya's going to be in the agegroup for the testers... ------------- Becca, mum of 2 girls & 3 boys |