not letting my 13-year old DD have the cervical cancer jab?

[IloveJudgeJudy]

It's now crunch time. I have a letter and form from school that I have to sign to allow my 13-year old DD have the three cervical cancer jabs. The form HAS TO be in tomorrow, one way or the other.

Last year when this vaccination came in I was all for it. BUT I have been reading up a bit more about it and have read that it only covers 70% of cervical cancers, far fewer people are affected by cervical cancers than by, for example, lung cancer or heart disease. I have also read, but I am not sure how true it is, that some girls have had quite severe adverse reactions to the vaccination.

So, AIBU to stop my daughter having these jabs?

here they do the jabs at 9. i did not consent for dd1 to be given the jab. i figure that in four or five years we can look at it again, when it's been around longer, and pay to get it done privately if necessary.

i'm not sure why i feel differently about this jab - i usually don't bother to think too deeply and am a bit of a sheep. for some reason i'm not 100% sure of this one, so am putting off the decision. she's not likely (lol) to be sexually active in the near future, so i figure i've got a few years to play with.

My DD has had it and I've no qualms about it. Like everything else, tehre are pros and cons but personally 70% protection is better than nothing. The logic about other cancers not really relevant in this context. There are scare stories about every medical issue, if you read and beleived all of them you'd be afraid to breathe.

Adverse reactions: yes, some girls felt unwell after first jab. Far fewer felt that way after second and third jabs. There was some reported fainting but this was more to do with mass girl hysteria I think (Like, OMG its a needle, I mean OMG a needle etc etc).

I have no regrets and nor does DD. Personally I think it's a very good thing but ultimately - your decision.

Worth a read if you are still undecided.

DD isn't having hers yet; she doesn't want to. I support her decision, but I said she should reconsider when she's 16. Does anyone know what the similarities are (if any) between Gardasil and Cervarix? There have been 2 deaths which may have been linked to Gardasil in Europe, not that that proves anything either way.

stuffit

Thalidomide - drugs are never tested in pregnant women, so the use of thalidomide to treat morning sickness was a huge error of judgement and not based on evidence from clinical trials.

Vioxx is a potent arthritis drug, and the CV side-effects that prompted it's withdrawal were only seen at high doses with long-term use. Actually, the manufacturers withdrew it voluntarily. This was not the decision of any governing body.

I'm not familiar with the acne drugs you mention.

Clinical trials and post-marketing experience are of course limited to the length of time since the drug has been in circulation. They are also based on mass data, and cannot rule out events in individuals. However, this is true of ALL drugs and procedures that are available.

Everyone having surgery is warned of the possible adverse effects of the anaesthetic alone, not including the risks associated with the surgery itself, and those of the follow-up drugs and painkillers. But if you are faced with a life-threatening illness, you will weight up the risks of being treated or not being treated.

All medical knowledge has limits. That will always be the case. There are plenty of things out there, such as aspirin I believe, not to mention all the homeopathic remedies, etc etc that never underwent formal testing before being widely used. Yet this vaccine has been tested in a huge trial and used very widely since. The risks of cervical cancer are well established, so to me it makes sense to take up something that has a good chance of protecting against it.

My personal opinion is that, unless you are anti-vaccination globally (i.e. no MMR, no flu, nothing), then there is no reason based on the data available to be concerned about this vaccine in particular.

Worth a read :

www.macmillan.org.uk/Cancerinformation/Cancertypes/Cervix/Aboutcervicalcancer/HPVvaccines.aspx

YABU - even if it protects her against 70% of cancers that's excellent protection IMHO. Involve her in the decision and make it based on hard facts, nothing else.

YANBU to not allow it if you have researched it thoroughly and are making an informed decision.

"YABU - why are you deciding on behalf of your dd? Can she not make the decision herself."

Don't really understand that. Why is the school sending out forms then if the children are supposed to make the decision?

dd had it and she has severe cp
she and her friends(vunerable) were fine.
but yanbu for worrying

Famishedass - My DD is only 13 so she does not get to decide what happens to her - her parents do. I/We have to sign the consent form, it does not just happen.

As I said before, I am usually pro-vaccination, but I cannot see the great advantage of this particular vaccination, especially as I understand that if you use a condom when having sex you are greatly protected against cervical cancer.

I am of the same view as madwomanintheattic.

My other worry is that in the UK we have Cervarix and it seems that in most of the rest of the world they have Gardasil.

Sassybeast - thank you for that link.

Thank you all again. I will be keeping an eye on this thread.

YANBU - I don't have a daughter, but if I did she would not be having the jab. What worries me about it is that girls will think there is no need to have smears if they've had the jab, but that is not the case.

I live in Belgium where they are pushing the Hep immunisation. Again, I refused to let ds have this as he has an underlying medical condition. He will have it privately through the military docs we see here, but only after the possible effects on him have been properly evaluated.

I would do more research about the vaccine personally, and talk to my doc and perhaps have it done privately later.

My dd's are only 3 and 6 but when the time comes it will be up to them if they have it or not, i think at the age of 13 they can have some say in having a jab.

If dd1 is offered the SF jab this year it will also be up to her but then again SF is not such a big killer (unlike cancer).

YABU
Anything that might lower the risk of cc is worth having.

The girl who died had an unrelated heart (?)condition.

What exactly are your reasons for not wanting her to have it? Are you thinking it will give her "permission" to be promiscuous.

I'm sorry and don't wish to be rude, but I think you need to wake up to reality and get over whatever issues you have on this, which appear unfounded.

For what it's worth, I have been thinking of paying £500 privately so my DD who is 21 can have it.

You should be bloody grateful it is available. Free.

Marne SF can be a killer

ILJJ don't be too confident on your consent being all powerful.

I have read and heard about personal anecdotes when the girls have had forms stating no consent from the parents. Through the whole feeling left out thing these girls wanted the jab and were deemed capable of informed consent.... they got the vaccine overriding the parents' wishes.

OP- I think you need to be more realistic. Yes, condoms can protect against cervical cancer- but what if your DD has a long term relationship and uses the coil, pill or IUD? Her partner may have had a varied sex life before her and be carrying the HPV. That is how it is passed on. Unless she marries a virgin- highly unlikely wouldn't you say?- and never has sex in her life without a condom, the risk is there.

You need to do some more research and work out if your prejudices are just that, or based on hard scientific data.

I feel so sorry for your DD that you as a misinformed parent are withholding something that could save her life.

I know SF can be a killer but surely Cancer is a bigger killer.

Dd1 would probably opt to have SF jab anyway but i wouldn't force her to have it.

This whole idea that you don't need to have it because you can use condoms is ludicrous. For a start IME the vast majority of people have sex without using barrier protection at some point including all of you who are parents! Therefore it is likely that if your daughters don't have the jab they too at some point will have sex without a condom and will therefore possibly be exposed. Out of interest how many of you posting know if you have the relevant HPV strains, I'll bet that many of you haven't checked

I think it is a very personal thing to think about, depending on a number of factors (one being if you have a strong "cancer gene" in the family). We have, therefore my dd will get the jab.

I really couldn't say anyone was unreasonable for not wanting their DD to have it, but IMHO anything that may prevent cancer is likely to be a winner with me.

Ther seems to be a misunderstanding over what HPV is!

It is like an STI but more complicated- we can all carry it and infect others even with no symptoms.

You can have the HPV and never get cervical cancer as your body fights it, but things like smoking and not eating a healthy diet can tip the balance.

Did you know that eating broccoli 5x a week for instance is supposed to reduce your risk by 2-3 times?

Unless you married a virgin, then you as a mum could have the HPV and possibly get cervical cancer.

OP- is it becoming clearer toyou?

This is from my DD's HPV letter,IloveJudgeJudy :
"What if she wants the vaccine but,as her parents,we'd rather she didn't have it?
The decision is legally hers as long as she understands the issues involved in giving consent,but the nurse would much rather have your permission as well..."

And a bit more education is needed if there is a chance of girls thinking they will not need a smear test,that isn't a reason for not immunising,surely?

Condoms break though don't they? And even the most intelligent girls sometimes forget to use them. Can you honestly say you've never forgotten to use one?

Nobody can really know how any drug is going to affect us because we are all different and have different genetics. What might affect one person might not affect another.

I wonder about people's willingness to use all sorts of chemicals in their homes, on their skin/hair and over the counter medicines and yet they worry about somthing like this.