FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Potential HPV vaccination -- Cancer and moral implications (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Potential HPV vaccination -- Cancer and moral implications
breyerchic04
Member
Member # 6423

 - posted      Profile for breyerchic04   Email breyerchic04         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Belle, the girl I got chicken pox from had them that bad, the places you mentioned plus under an eyelid. I got three, total. I was 4 or five, she was younger but not much younger.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BannaOj
Member
Member # 3206

 - posted      Profile for BannaOj   Email BannaOj         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
romany, I'm just curious, how severe did you feel your son's reaction was? The CDC data says that 1/6 people is going to have a mild reaction.

I also don't know that they are even required to report mild reactions, as the statistics are normally taken from a representative population sample, and are not necessarily ongoing contantly.

AJ

Posts: 11264 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BannaOj
Member
Member # 3206

 - posted      Profile for BannaOj   Email BannaOj         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting... you can report the reaction yourself if you feel it was significant...

http://vaers.hhs.gov/vaers.htm#2

Posts: 11264 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
baxter999
New Member
Member # 9508

 - posted      Profile for baxter999   Email baxter999         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Human Papilloma virus vaccine approved by the FDA will reportedly protect against 4 types of the virus - 6 & 11 which are responsible for 90% of the genital warts (not the hi-risk cervical cancer kind) and types 16&18 which are responsible for about 70% of the cervical cancer. This is not 100% protection, however. (Very little is 100% in medicine) Even with the vaccine you can still catch these strains plus the other 25 or so genital strains so you will still have to have Pap smears.

If both partners enter a marriage as virgins and remain completely faithful during the whole marriage, then neither one will get genital HPV. And therefore won't get cervical cancer. The problem is that you can never be sure your partner is telling the truth, so even Apostle's wives should get regular Pap smears.

And for those who feel the need to tell about their family history of cervical cancer, I would suggest not mentioning this in public in the future as you are telling us that either grandpa or grandma had sex with someone else sometime in their lives. I can't tell you how uncomfortable it is to hear someone in a testimony meeting in church tell about their relative's (or worse, their own)cervical cancer. Please stop, although I do hear an occasional snicker from doctor's in the congregation when someone announces this over the pulpit that livens up what might be an otherwise boring meeting. Luckily cervical cancer is getting to be rare since Pap smears detect pre-cancerous changes of the cervix and HPV and pre-cancerous changes are easily treated.

And yes 80% of sexually active American women (meaning had sex at least once in their life) are infected with this sexually transmitted disease sometime in their lives. Most clear the infection in a matter of years, but they are infectious during that time, and some never clear the infection.

You won't catch genital HPV at school as long as you keep your clothes on and your hands out of your and other people's pants. The HPV that causes hand and foot warts are other types.

The vaccine appears to be safe and seems to be a good idea for women. (Penile cancer is rare and easily seen and treated. Vaccinated men would be much less likely to be carriers but would not be directly impacted by the disease nearly as much a women)

Posts: 1 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has suggested routine vaccines for 11 & 12 year-olds. While they don't have the final say in what is "officially" recommended, the federal health officials normally accepts their recs.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/06/29/hpv.vaccine.ap/index.html

It also looks like most insurance companies will be covering these vaccinations, once it gets through all the proper channels. It's also recommended that females up to the age of 26 get "catch-up" vaccinations once they become available.

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If both partners enter a marriage as virgins and remain completely faithful during the whole marriage, then neither one will get genital HPV. And therefore won't get cervical cancer. The problem is that you can never be sure your partner is telling the truth, so even Apostle's wives should get regular Pap smears.
I believe that HPV is not necessarily the ONLY cause of the cancer, though I might be wrong. And women get exams for reasons beyond detecting HPV, besides.

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vonk
Member
Member # 9027

 - posted      Profile for vonk   Email vonk         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, Gvn. Rick Perry made Texas the first state to have mandatory HPV vaccinations.

Not only that, but he did it by completely bypassing the normal law-making procedures and made it an executive order. I'm all for the vaccination, and it may just be an over sensative paranoid-conspiracy-theory nerve, but I gotta wonder if this has anything to do with the $1000+ dollars Merck will be getting from every insured sixth grade girl. Sounds like Kickback City to me, but then again, it could be innocent, I don't know.

What do y'all think?

Posts: 2589 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

And for those who feel the need to tell about their family history of cervical cancer, I would suggest not mentioning this in public in the future as you are telling us that either grandpa or grandma had sex with someone else sometime in their lives. I can't tell you how uncomfortable it is to hear someone in a testimony meeting in church tell about their relative's (or worse, their own)cervical cancer. Please stop, although I do hear an occasional snicker from doctor's in the congregation when someone announces this over the pulpit that livens up what might be an otherwise boring meeting.

*shakes head*

Words fail me.

O.K., actually, they don't, but I'm just not interested in getting into what will probably be a fight with the board.

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Will B
Member
Member # 7931

 - posted      Profile for Will B   Email Will B         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't find significant moral implications in the vaccine; we often do things to lessen the consequence of unfortunate acts (like, say, putting covers on the electric outlets, even though Junior was told not to stick his finger in there). However, that's *my* decision, not the governor's.

The moral implications of the governor using force to make parents override their consciences -- that's pretty awful.

Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vonk
Member
Member # 9027

 - posted      Profile for vonk   Email vonk         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, if the parents have a religious or philisophical argument against the vaccination, they can submit it in writing and their child will be exempt. I don't think it should be on the parent to prevent the vaccine, it should be on the parent to get it in the fist place.

I think everyone that can should get the vaccination, but I agree with you that the gov't shouldn't force everyone to get it. They just should. (IMO)

Posts: 2589 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
O.K., actually, they don't, but I'm just not interested in getting into what will probably be a fight with the board.
Depending on what you said, I'd bet most of the board would agree with you. Almost certainly most of the board will not agree with the quoted take on mentioning cervical cancer in public.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mentioning your or your family's cancer in church and getting snickered at by someone in the back pew...not a real classy response.

I am also wondering if pH is not right. I could swear that cervical cancer was not alone caused by HPV, but was a mitigating factor.

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shanna
Member
Member # 7900

 - posted      Profile for Shanna   Email Shanna         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What worries me most about the vaccine is the fact that its so new.

I've been seeing my doctor alot recently for mystery pain. We decided that since my health has been so odd lately, that I should get the shot to prevent any complications later in life.

So I went for my first round last month. I don't like needles and it did hurt more than the average flu shot, but I'd been in the hospital a month before and nothing could compare to all those injections and IVs. The worst part was that on my way back to the waiting room, I passed out. Dropped hard straight to the ground. My parents had to come and bring me home especially since my arm was in too much pain to drive. My doctor and the nurses were completely stunned and now my chart says I have to wait atleast half an hour before leaving after the next two rounds of shots.

I went and did my research on medalerts and found that "loss of consciousness" is a commonly reported side-effect. There was even the story of one girl who pitched right off the exam table. Other side-effects included intense pain at the injection site, allergic reactions and rashes, slurred speech, disorientation, and seizure.

Personally, I'm still alittle nervous about getting shot twice more. But with a classmate recently diagnosed and my mother's own case (it lay dormant for decades), I figure it worth a few minutes of unconsciousness. My reproductive organs have enough ways to self-destruct before I get married and have kids and anything that removes one of those possibilities is very wanted.

Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
O.K., actually, they don't, but I'm just not interested in getting into what will probably be a fight with the board.
Depending on what you said, I'd bet most of the board would agree with you. Almost certainly most of the board will not agree with the quoted take on mentioning cervical cancer in public.
I whole-heartedly agree. In fact, I almost said something myself, but after three drafts nothing could come close to expressing my feeling on the topic.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vonk
Member
Member # 9027

 - posted      Profile for vonk   Email vonk         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am also wondering if pH is not right. I could swear that cervical cancer was not alone caused by HPV, but was a mitigating factor.
In the Gardisil commercial they say that while HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer, it is not the only cause, so it is still important to get regular screenings.

Edit: and WebMD confirms it. link Apparently there are several potential causes of cervical cancer, though I believe most of them are only "part of the complex interactions that cause cervical cancer."

[ February 06, 2007, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: vonk ]

Posts: 2589 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Farmgirl
Member
Member # 5567

 - posted      Profile for Farmgirl   Email Farmgirl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Back when this thread first started, using ElJay's hypotheticals, I said I would recommend this for my daughter.

However, that certainly doesn't mean I agree with a government MANDATE on it (glad to see they are giving an opt-out option). I think this should be between family & doctor.

That said, I probably still won't ask my daughter to get it yet -- it is just too new -- and I don't trust those things -- after years of us having things that would turn up 20 years later to have caused serious long-term problems. How can we know what this does to a girl long term yet, or if there are negatives?

FG

Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MidnightBlue
Member
Member # 6146

 - posted      Profile for MidnightBlue   Email MidnightBlue         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I definitely plan to get it at some point, but I'm not sure when that will be. My doctor's office isn't planning to get it until sometime this year, but I go to school out of state and will be out of the country for most of the summer so I don't know that I will be able to get the three shots in six months. The website for our campus health center doesn't list it under their vaccination list, though I should probably try the page for their women's clinic.

I don't think there should be a government mandate quite yet, though I don't know that I disagree with one once the vaccine has been out long enough to know what the side effects and whatnot are.

Posts: 1547 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't think there should be a government mandate quite yet, though I don't know that I disagree with one once the vaccine has been out long enough to know what the side effects and whatnot are.
That's basically my position as well; it seems to me that widespread distribution of a vaccine is key to its success. I think that's particularly true in this specific case, since the relevant strains of HPV can be carried undetectably by 50% of the population (that is, males).
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pH:
quote:
If both partners enter a marriage as virgins and remain completely faithful during the whole marriage, then neither one will get genital HPV. And therefore won't get cervical cancer. The problem is that you can never be sure your partner is telling the truth, so even Apostle's wives should get regular Pap smears.
I believe that HPV is not necessarily the ONLY cause of the cancer, though I might be wrong. And women get exams for reasons beyond detecting HPV, besides.

-pH

Read an article about this and the virus is responsible for the vast majority of cervical cancer cases, something in the ball park of at the most 90%.

I do not think making it a requirement is warranted in this case. The government should in this instance not try to tell us how to take care of our children. In this instance the vaccination helps one person who is not a liability to others, thus its not like getting a small pox vaccination.

I really feel Merc (the developer of the vaccination) is pushing for making the vaccination mandatory as the entire vaccination is around $350. They stand to make a HUGE chunk of money if every child was required to get this shot.

I am all for using this vaccination as I feel its important to do all I reasonably can do to prepare my children for life. If people want to take a step towards prevention give them the option, don't make them take it.

This is not some sort of landmark decision if it is made either way, but a decision to require children to get this vaccination is a sizeable chip at personal freedoms, and its government treading in territory it should not be treading in.

Oddly enough, in many instances I am partial to big government and intervention, but this is not one of them.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
brojack17
Member
Member # 9189

 - posted      Profile for brojack17   Email brojack17         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok. I am the father of four girls (ages 3-10). All of them will go get them when they are 12. Looking at their future, I want them to have the best chances of fighting cancer.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm just going to play devil's advocate for a while. Honestly, I haven't made up my mind on the mandate. (Although I think if I have a girl, she will get the vaccine.)

Theoretically, if ALL girls are vaccinated, then much like with polio, we can practically wipe out these strains of HPV. Once again in theory, there is no forced communication of this disease from person to person, however in reality, it is a common and widespread virus. Some form of HPV is present in something like 85% of women. It doesn't exactly take a ton of promiscuity to get this disease. Yeah, if we only ever have sex with our sopuse who is also a virgin, we shouldn't get the virus, but this, too is not a representation of reality. The average American has 6 sexual partners in his/her lifetime.

Anyway...just some thoughts to throw out there. I haven't read this entire thread, but it does seem that no one is considering the opposition so I thought I'd give it a shot.

Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MidnightBlue
Member
Member # 6146

 - posted      Profile for MidnightBlue   Email MidnightBlue         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One of the reasons I think this vaccine is important is that I'm pretty sure I read (probably in a link from this thread the first time around) is that HPV and still be transferred if the couple uses protection. Since most people have multiple partners at some point, and many people do not bother to get tested beforehand, it's really easy for this to get spread even if everyone is being as careful and responsible as possible.

(I realize that there are people on the board who view any sex outside of marriage as irresponsible or wrong, but if you fall in love with someone who has had sex before, are you going to not marry them simply because of that?)

I can understand people who don't want the government involved no matter what side it ends up on, but unless the vaccine ends up having some serious side effects I see no reason for it not to become standard for everyone. Whether this should be done by mandate or just by recommendation from doctors I'm not sure.

Posts: 1547 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jlt
Member
Member # 10088

 - posted      Profile for jlt   Email jlt         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Speaking as a non-sexually active teen, I would still get the shot. For one thing, it is supposed to be effective in younger women (I think) to protect them against future infection. Also, for other girls my age not having sex before marriage seems laughable and so this shot would be especially beneficial for them, even if others feel that their choices are not morally correct. As for not allowing the vaccination until age 17 or whatever, seems questionable to tell kids, we won't protect you from getting a disease and maybe cancer because we don't want you to have sex yet, in reality, it won't stop younger teens and just puts them at risk.
Posts: 130 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I had the ability to do all sorts of "bad" things while I was a teen: drugs, sex, drinking, crime, etc. I didn't do those things, because my parents brought me up to be a good person, and make thoughtful choices.

Giving a shot to teenagers to protect them from cancer won't make them have sex any more than putting airbags in a car makes people crash into highway medians.

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by twinky:
quote:
I don't think there should be a government mandate quite yet, though I don't know that I disagree with one once the vaccine has been out long enough to know what the side effects and whatnot are.
That's basically my position as well; it seems to me that widespread distribution of a vaccine is key to its success.
Agreed. While I think making it one of the required vaccines should happen, I disagree with doing it so quickly after it became available. It was what, 2? 4? years after the chickenpox vaccine became available here before it became mandatory (and I think it may still not be in some states?)

While I do plan to (most likely, depending on insurance coverage and the pediatrician's recommendation) have my almost-13-year-old get the shot next time we're in, making it mandatory strikes me as premature. And I dislike the executive end-run around established legislative practice.

I suspect it is a question of money, although not the way several other posters have meant that. I wonder if it would be possible to require Medicare and Texas' state equivalent to cover the cost for the uninsured if it were not a required vaccine? My guess (based on when equivalent coverage became available for other vaccines -- only after they became mandatory) is probably not.

Still should have gone through the state legislature though. [Razz]

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MidnightBlue
Member
Member # 6146

 - posted      Profile for MidnightBlue   Email MidnightBlue         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:

I suspect it is a question of money, although not the way several other posters have meant that. I wonder if it would be possible to require Medicare and Texas' state equivalent to cover the cost for the uninsured if it were not a required vaccine? My guess (based on when equivalent coverage became available for other vaccines -- only after they became mandatory) is probably not.

Still should have gone through the state legislature though. [Razz]

That's a really good point. I had wondered about insurance coverage, and it probably is a whole lot easier to get companies (particularly government funded health plans) to provide something if it's mandatory for people to get it.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

I had the ability to do all sorts of "bad" things while I was a teen: drugs, sex, drinking, crime, etc. I didn't do those things, because my parents brought me up to be a good person, and make thoughtful choices.

Giving a shot to teenagers to protect them from cancer won't make them have sex any more than putting airbags in a car makes people crash into highway medians.

I know there was many a time when I was about to have sex with some strange person in an alley in exchange for Little Friskies when I stopped myself for fear of getting HPV.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Re: passing out

Shanna, did you mean that this is a common side effect (i.e., occurs commonly), or that among side effects for the HPV vaccination, this is one is one of the more common ones?

----

Edited to add:

From the CDC insert, it looks like the most common side effects are:

1. 80% get pain at the injection site
2. 25% get redness or swelling at the injection site
3. 10% get a mildly elevated body temperature (100°F)
4. 3% get itching at the injection site
5. 1.5% get a fever (102°F)

[ February 07, 2007, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll pick that (potential) fight, Storm Saxon.

baxter999,

quote:
I can't tell you how uncomfortable it is to hear someone in a testimony meeting in church tell about their relative's (or worse, their own)cervical cancer.
Yes, Baxter999, because church definitely isn't about sharing one's heartache and suffering-as well as joy and happiness-amongst the community, drawing support and lending it from that same community. Rather, it's about repressing the more impolite infirmities, sharing only that which is appropriately sterilized and proper.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Belle
Member
Member # 2314

 - posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This reminds me of the time someone told me they didn't think I should share that I had colon cancer. It was too embarrassing, she said though she wasn't clear as to whether she was embarrassed or thought I should be. [Dont Know]

I told her that I wanted people to know that colon cancer wasn't just something that happened to people over 50, and that screening is important to detect what could be a fatal disease, and that early detection is life-saving in this instance. Apparently, she believed that because talking about it required an acknowledgement that yes, people do have bodies that must remove waste, it was a subject better not discussed. [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shanna
Member
Member # 7900

 - posted      Profile for Shanna   Email Shanna         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Shanna, did you mean that this is a common side effect (i.e., occurs commonly), or that among side effects for the HPV vaccination, this is one is one of the more common ones?

Sorry for not making that more clear. I think my brain was still scrambled.

My intent was to say that "passing out," though not listed on the CDC warning, seems to be a common report from doctors now administering the vaccine. My office had thought my reaction to be a freak response, but through medalerts I saw that it was a side-effect I had in common with others who had difficulty with the vaccine.

Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Very few people have stated that they oppose this because it encourages sex, or empowers teenagers to have sex without repercussions.

I really feel the more important aspect is the federal government making this mandatory when cervical cancer is not polio or small pox by any stretch of the imagination.

If we follow this line of logic, if I invent a vaccine that can prevent ALL disease from ever occurring and the vaccine costs 25,000 dollars how can we draw a line as to "this is how far the price may go but no further" when it comes to preventing disease and the governments right to make its population take steps to do so?

This really sounds like a state affair that local and state governments should be allowed to consider and implement/ignore. We don't even have universal health care in the states, so why are we instituting "Required Health Care?" I'd like the house to be built before I am told to move into it.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Shanna:
quote:

Shanna, did you mean that this is a common side effect (i.e., occurs commonly), or that among side effects for the HPV vaccination, this is one is one of the more common ones?

Sorry for not making that more clear. I think my brain was still scrambled.

My intent was to say that "passing out," though not listed on the CDC warning, seems to be a common report from doctors now administering the vaccine. My office had thought my reaction to be a freak response, but through medalerts I saw that it was a side-effect I had in common with others who had difficulty with the vaccine.

Do you mean the VAERS (vaccine adverse event reporting service) -- the system the CDC uses to track vaccine reactions?

When I look through VAERS, I don't see more syncopal episodes reported than I would expect to see. (Some people will faint when they have the pain of an injection, but this isn't common.) I also don't see it listed on any of the typical medical sites as a common concern.

I don't know what "MedAlerts" is. Is it a medical site? I wonder if it might be a non-medical site that isn't interpreting the population data reliably.

Regardless, I hope it never happens to you again. I imagine it was pretty scary. [Frown]

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
If we follow this line of logic, if I invent a vaccine that can prevent ALL disease from ever occurring and the vaccine costs 25,000 dollars how can we draw a line as to "this is how far the price may go but no further" when it comes to preventing disease and the governments right to make its population take steps to do so?

That vaccine would be a spectacular bargain. Long-term health care costs are staggering, which is why an ounce of prevention is quite literally worth a pound of cure.

Also, "we don't have universal health care, so we shouldn't vaccinate people" strikes me as a non sequitur.

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you, Rakeesh and Belle.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sexually transmitted infections can be transmitted by contact that was voluntary or involuntary. They can be transmitted on occasions that are remembered fondly or with regret.

When I hear about an STI, I generally have no idea what the circumstances were surrounding its transmission. That seems to be true for most of us, so I think it's safest not to assume the details.

A separate issue is whether or not to mock or think less of someone else for not having specific medical information for themselves (such as if one were to mock a woman for publically mentioning a condition which may be connected to other information she might not have voluntarily disclosed). I don't do that, either.

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:

I really feel the more important aspect is the federal government making this mandatory when cervical cancer is not polio or small pox by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm not clear on what exact differences make it ok to mandate vaccinating against polio and small pox but not against cervical cancer.
quote:

If we follow this line of logic, if I invent a vaccine that can prevent ALL disease from ever occurring and the vaccine costs 25,000 dollars how can we draw a line as to "this is how far the price may go but no further" when it comes to preventing disease and the governments right to make its population take steps to do so?

I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at here.

quote:
This really sounds like a state affair that local and state governments should be allowed to consider and implement/ignore. We don't even have universal health care in the states, so why are we instituting "Required Health Care?" I'd like the house to be built before I am told to move into it.

I'm not sure what universal health care has to do with anything. If this is a just thing to *require* citizens to do (and I'm not sure it is), then the reasoning behind it is that if all citizens are vaccinated, we can wipe this virus out of existence. We've nearly done that with other diseases, including small pox and polio. [Smile]
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blacwolve
Member
Member # 2972

 - posted      Profile for blacwolve   Email blacwolve         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everyone realizes that the post everyone is angry about is the only post baxter ever made here and it was made over six months ago, right? I don't think he's still around to argue with you.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shanna
Member
Member # 7900

 - posted      Profile for Shanna   Email Shanna         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:
Originally posted by Shanna:
quote:

Shanna, did you mean that this is a common side effect (i.e., occurs commonly), or that among side effects for the HPV vaccination, this is one is one of the more common ones?

Sorry for not making that more clear. I think my brain was still scrambled.

My intent was to say that "passing out," though not listed on the CDC warning, seems to be a common report from doctors now administering the vaccine. My office had thought my reaction to be a freak response, but through medalerts I saw that it was a side-effect I had in common with others who had difficulty with the vaccine.

Do you mean the VAERS (vaccine adverse event reporting service) -- the system the CDC uses to track vaccine reactions?

When I look through VAERS, I don't see more syncopal episodes reported than I would expect to see. (Some people will faint when they have the pain of an injection, but this isn't common.) I also don't see it listed on any of the typical medical sites as a common concern.

I don't know what "MedAlerts" is. Is it a medical site? I wonder if it might be a non-medical site that isn't interpreting the population data reliably.

Regardless, I hope it never happens to you again. I imagine it was pretty scary. [Frown]

Yeah, it looks like VAERS and medalerts are related. Medalerts is the online search engine for VAERS.

To get numbers for those interested, there are 294 reports of side-effects for "HPV4" (I looked and didn't see one for me. [Smile] ) From that number, 49 reported fainted or loss of consciousness. So, 1 out of 6 reports.

I'm just thankful I didn't hit anything hard on the way down or passed out while driving, and was able to be woken up (my younger brother takes hours to come out of a fainting episode). It just bothers me that because the drug is so new, none of the nurses were expecting it. I was warned about the possibility of pain, though nobody said anything about my arm being incapacitated for the rest of the day. And I'm not a fainting person having already dealt with foot-long needles injecting steroids into my knee.

Maybe its just the nature of doctor offices to stab and go. Course that opens up a whole new debate though about whether research of a drug/treatment falls on a patient or a doctor. To what extent do a person rely on their doctor to inform them of potential risks, medical debate, etc.

I know there's been controversy regarding how the vaccine can INCREASE the risk of cancer in a woman who is already infected. And yet, its possible to be infected without causing abnormal test results. Abnormal test results themselves are not uncommon and minor abnormalities caused by HPV. Re-tests do not immediately follow and specific tests for HPV are ordered at the doctor's discretion. So far, it doesn't seem like the CDC is requiring intial general or specific HPV tests to be done prior to receiving the vaccine.

So perhaps its safer to vaccinate young girls as soon as possible. I was just reading an article about a girl with a perfectly normal exam and test results in December who had developed a massive tumor on her cervix by the following May. Here it is for anyone who wants a really depressing read: http://www.janemag.com/magazine/articles/2006/03/20/HPV

Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Shanna:
Yeah, it looks like VAERS and medalerts are related. Medalerts is the online search engine for VAERS.

Hmmm. VAERS has a direct search engine. I Googled some of the terms, and I think you may be going through the National Vaccine Information Center, which -- although it looks official -- isn't really affiliated with VAERS or the CDC in general. It looks like a private non-profit group which is generally not in favor of vaccinations.

Doesn't mean that what they say is wrong, of course, but there may be bias in how it was reported that you were not aware of.

quote:
To get numbers for those interested, there are 294 reports of side-effects for "HPV4" (I looked and didn't see one for me. [Smile] ) From that number, 49 reported fainted or loss of consciousness. So, 1 out of 6 reports.
What I'm wondering is what the denominator is there; e.g., in the 100,000s?

---

The big thing is that you are okay. I was just taken aback because I work with this patient population and hadn't heard about this as a "common" effect at all. If it is, I need to know. [Smile]

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm actually quite concerned about the NVIC/MedAlerts website. They seem to be posting downloaded information from the VAERS system (presumably copyrighted) via a route that bypasses the VAERS's requirement that you read and signlink an introduction to the limitations of interpreting the data.

That doesn't seem wise, and I wonder if it might be prohibited. I will check into this.

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stihl1
Member
Member # 1562

 - posted      Profile for stihl1   Email stihl1         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dr Drew supports this vaccine, and anything he supports cannot be bad. Therefore I also support this vaccine.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

I'm not clear on what exact differences make it ok to mandate vaccinating against polio and small pox but not against cervical cancer.

Small pox and Polio IMO (and I could be wrong) cause far more injury and death then HPV. A child with small pox is a danger to me and my own children, and so it makes sense for the government to step in and protect the population by immunizing us all.

quote:

I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at here.

I can perform miracle A, but it costs $B, I am going to lobby the government to coerce you into allowing me to perform miracle A on you at cost $B to you.

I do not view that scenario as ethical, the government can endorse programs that perform miracle A even make insurance companies cover it (in some instances). But the government stepping in and requiring me to vaccinate my children from this virus is a step towards the government running my family instead of me.

If it's such a danger, why can't the government require adults who are not vaccinated to stop having sex until they do so as a health precaution? It might sound too extreme but it follows the same logic. (I admit I may not understand how HPV is spread, and I am going to read up on it right now.)

quote:

I'm not sure what universal health care has to do with anything. If this is a just thing to *require* citizens to do (and I'm not sure it is), then the reasoning behind it is that if all citizens are vaccinated, we can wipe this virus out of existence. We've nearly done that with other diseases, including small pox and polio.

Eradicating a disease in of itself is not sufficient cause for the government to make me purchase a vaccination. Why doesn't the government force the population to get flu shots every autumn? People die from it every year.

quote:

Also, "we don't have universal health care, so we shouldn't vaccinate people" strikes me as a non sequitur.

I don't think it is. My house analogy makes it perfectly clear. Health care in the US is underdeveloped IMO, it needs to be more available, not more specifically mandatory.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Eradicating a disease in of itself is not sufficient cause for the government to make me purchase a vaccination. Why doesn't the government force the population to get flu shots every autumn? People die from it every year.
I'm still thinking about the rest of what you had to say, but I can easily answer this. The flu is different every year, and each year the flu shot protects against last year's flu. It is one of the most adaptable viruses we have and so it absolutely would not eliminate the flu to have everyone vaccinated against it. The best you can say about the flu shot is that it lowers your risk a bit. It's really a very uninspiring vaccine to me and this is largely the reason that I chose not to get it for my son, even though the insurance company agreed to pay for it.

Oh, and one other thing I can mention...this vaccine is not one that should be given to adults once they have become sexually active because if you have already contracted the virus it makes it even more likely that you will get cervical cancer. So vaccinating adults is really not an option.

Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Farmgirl
Member
Member # 5567

 - posted      Profile for Farmgirl   Email Farmgirl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

HPV is a virus with hundreds of strains, explained Mineral Wells family practice physician Dr. Patrick Hisel.

Hisel said that, “Calling HPV a sexually transmitted disease is debatable because it’s the same virus that causes warts on our fingers. It’s ubiquitous. It’s so incredibly common that I would hate for the stigmata of an STD to prevent people getting the vaccine that could prevent major problems down the road.”

That was from this article
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shanna
Member
Member # 7900

 - posted      Profile for Shanna   Email Shanna         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Oh, and one other thing I can mention...this vaccine is not one that should be given to adults once they have become sexually active because if you have already contracted the virus it makes it even more likely that you will get cervical cancer. So vaccinating adults is really not an option.
I'd really like to see more studies done regarding adults, especially younger adults with limited sexual encounters.

Even if a woman has had sex (or any variation of genital to genital contact with or without a condom) she may not have contracted HPV or atleast may not have contracted one of the strands the vaccine guards against. Without adequate methods of testing, its like playing Russian Roulette. The same thing that could save them, could harm them down the road. Which chance do you take?

I'd like the CDC to require the DNA tests for HPV for sexually-active adults. Even then, that's an imperfect test and it would be better if more precise tests could be developed.

Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Christine:
quote:
Eradicating a disease in of itself is not sufficient cause for the government to make me purchase a vaccination. Why doesn't the government force the population to get flu shots every autumn? People die from it every year.
I'm still thinking about the rest of what you had to say, but I can easily answer this. The flu is different every year, and each year the flu shot protects against last year's flu. It is one of the most adaptable viruses we have and so it absolutely would not eliminate the flu to have everyone vaccinated against it. The best you can say about the flu shot is that it lowers your risk a bit. It's really a very uninspiring vaccine to me and this is largely the reason that I chose not to get it for my son, even though the insurance company agreed to pay for it.
Thanks for that response.

Then why isn't the government simply requiring us to get flu shots annually, like filing our taxes every year?

If that is unconvincing then substitute Flu Shots then for Hepatitis A or B vaccination shots. Or if a vaccination for C existed, use that.

What if there was a separate vaccination for every single type of cancer? Wouldn't the government be justified in requiring us to get vaccinated for at least the most common kinds? Or the types with the highest mortality rate?

I just do not think the government should require its citizens to take costly steps towards their health in this instance. The government should be providing for its citizens health, not dictating how they ought to take care of themselves.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because there's also evidence getting flu shots helps spur the flu to become harder to combat.

Cancer would only justify government intervention if it were transmittable. Its the health risk to others that makes mandatory vaccinations justifiable; the externality that makes it more beneficial to people as a whole than to any one person individually, that is very hard to create a right that handles. Of course, a better way might be to quantify the (average) value to everyone of each person's vaccination, then pay everyone who gets vaccinated that amount. There are problems with that, too, but it avoids the coercion dilemma.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To elaborate:

Essentially, there's a weighing between the damage to society by not requiring vaccinations and the damage to society by requiring vaccines. Some people believe that requiring something is always more damaging (yet are generally willing to countenance at least minimal taxation for defense and basic law enforcement, so they apparently mean always more damaging than being invaded, murder, and theft; at that point it becomes a question of where to draw the line, not if there's a line to be drawn, though), but most people reject this view.

Some things probably aren't virulent enough to justify the harm of required vaccinations. Some probably are. I know you've already touched on this somewhat, but it really does become a question of where you draw the line; if you've already accepted that some things can reasonably be required vaccinations, then its necessary to evaluate the specific criteria that they meet, and determine if other diseases do or do not meet similar specific criteria.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MidnightBlue
Member
Member # 6146

 - posted      Profile for MidnightBlue   Email MidnightBlue         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by Christine:
quote:
Eradicating a disease in of itself is not sufficient cause for the government to make me purchase a vaccination. Why doesn't the government force the population to get flu shots every autumn? People die from it every year.
I'm still thinking about the rest of what you had to say, but I can easily answer this. The flu is different every year, and each year the flu shot protects against last year's flu. It is one of the most adaptable viruses we have and so it absolutely would not eliminate the flu to have everyone vaccinated against it. The best you can say about the flu shot is that it lowers your risk a bit. It's really a very uninspiring vaccine to me and this is largely the reason that I chose not to get it for my son, even though the insurance company agreed to pay for it.
Thanks for that response.

Then why isn't the government simply requiring us to get flu shots annually, like filing our taxes every year?

If that is unconvincing then substitute Flu Shots then for Hepatitis A or B vaccination shots. Or if a vaccination for C existed, use that.


It's not mandatory, but my middle school health center offered free Hep B vaccines every year. Maybe that would be the best approach. They sent things out to parents telling them when the vaccines would be and how to sign their kid up. The shots were during school so there were no issues with transportation or anything like that. Maybe the HPV vaccine should be handled the same way. The problem is that not all school systems can do that.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2