HPV Vaccine should i consent for my 12 year old be given this?

[Rewy]

A little concerned regarding the decision on this as there does seem to be some worrying side effects .

Am I right in thinking that there's been a rise in oral cancer amongst men due to the prevalence of HPV?

Oral cancers are relatively rare and are more often cancers of older people caused by long-term smoking and drinking.

www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Cancer-of-the-mouth/Pages/Causes-v2.aspx

Whereas cervical cancer is (a) more common and (b) more often caused by HPV.

"no "side effect" is as bad as the risk of cancer"

That's a ridiculous thing to say. 'side effects' are not restricted to a sore arm or a bit of a red mark. We all are at risk of cancer. Some more than others. In the case of cervical cancer, the fact that the lesions can be identified before they develop into cancer makes it a hell of a lot more preventable than other cancers - even without the vaccine.

Is this really going to turn into another MMR debate? Please no.

OK, thanks for that duhgldiuhfdsli.

Honeysucklejasmine, how on earth do you imagine you can "insist" on your hypothetical ADULT daughters having regular smears and safe sex? You can certainly advise, but short of standing over them as they dtd and checking for correct condom usage "insisting" is not going to happen.

(And well said, MrsW.)

MrsW ... I know, i never said side effects were always minor. I'm still pretty confident that cancer is worse. And not potentially reducing your risk of a disease just because "its easy to spot earlier" is pretty reckless, imo.

Absinthe much the same way my mum did for me, i imagine. I don't need her standing over me to know that condoms are required and one shouldn't ignore doctors letters.

the lesions can be identified before they develop into cancer

There's some evidence that cone biopsies are associated with elevated risks of miscarriage, in which case even if the treatment is entirely successful in preventing any further cancer it's still not risk free.

And regular attendance for cervical smear and any associated followups is lower amongst women who are younger, poorer or from ethnic minorities.

jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/16/pubmed.fds019.full

And not just in the UK, either.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10910407

Simply assuming that (a) all women will have regular smears and (b) that treatment following from that is effective and risk-free seems naive, in the face of a reasonably effective and cheap vaccine. Reducing the baseline incidence can hardly be a bad thing, can it?

one shouldn't ignore doctors letters

www.nature.com/srep/2013/130806/srep02362/full/srep02362.html

92% of women who die from cervical cancer have never been screened.

1 in 5 women do not respond to invitations for screenings.

I'm pretty certain I've picked up from reading dental journals that there's been a significant increase in oral cancers in younger people. Yes, smoking and alcohol are risk factors, but so is HPV, and that's one of the reasons my DD will be getting the vaccine, and also why I'm looking into getting my DSs vaccinated privately if need be. Obviously there will be those that can't or won't have the vaccine, but based on the research I've seen, I really hope the programme is rolled out to boys too. I think the "sexual" aspect clouds the issue, I suspect there would be less debate about a vaccine to prevent colon cancer.

That's a really sad statistic! We desperately need to improve the education regarding women's health. It simply isn't taught in schools and we obviously can't rely on parents to do the job completely.

Even a tv series would be better than nothing. The "Jade Goody" effect was tragic but far reaching.

The thing is, your daughter needs to understand that in this case,having sex includes the most minimal of sexual encounters, kissing, and definitely includes the next several levels of experimenting and exploring by touch.

For most effectiveness, the jab needs to come before she has the slightest inkling of exploring any level of arousal. That's a lot of pressure.

Momagain completely agree. The first year this was rolled out in schools, my form asked if i was having it too. I had to explain that i was too old. "but why, miss? What's that got to do with it?" i fobbed them off, but their p.e. teacher had already mentioned it was all about being sexually active. Cheers love!

For clarity: because of her cackhanded explanation, they all thought they were now safe and didn't need to take other precautions. I was not impressed. Leave it to the professionals, love! (not me, the hcp)

I think that was a major flaw in the way the vaccine campaign was rolled out. My dd didn't have it (hers was the first year for whom it was available) and her friends had the horrified attitude that 'now you're going to get cancer.' There was - and still isn't, as far as I know - enough contextual information about what the vaccine was for, and - crucially - the steps that women still need to take to ensure they're as protected as possible.

poster MrsW
special, how do we find the ones who aren't 'healthy'?

Generally, parents and their children with immune system disorders or other health conditions making HPV immunisation unadvisable are well aware of the situation before the children have reached this age. There may be the rare patient that has an unexpected reaction, but statistically, avoiding vaccine for fear of that is as reasonable as choosing homeschooling lest a child get killed in traffic on the walk to school.

honeysuckle, for some people who may be at high risk of developing cervical cancer then yes, the vaccine may be the safer option but for others, a side effect may be completely life changing and they may not have ever developed cervical cancer even without the vaccine. It's a poor comparison to make. Currently we have no way of knowing who is more likely to develop cervical cancer and who is more likely to react badly to a vaccine so we can't tell someone that 'the risk of cancer is much greater than the risk of the vaccine' for them or their daughter because we just don't know if that is the case on an individual basis. We are moving in that direction but until we actually get there it would be nice if people could be less judgemental about the decisions that other people are making and trying to guilt trip people ( or insult them!).

duh, I'm not sure what point you are making here. The smears are still necessary even with the vaccine. If abnormal cells are identified they will still require treatment.

As mentioned earlier, there is concern that the vaccine may result in complacency as far as screening is concerned. So those figures you are quoting about how many women respond to screening could actually get worse. There is also the possibility (currently being investigated) of other high risk strains basically 'replacing' the current ones that are being vaccinated against. So assuming that this vaccine is going to get rid of all those cases of CC is a bit presumptuous at this stage.

This is making me sound as if I'm telling people not to bother having the vaccine. I'm not saying that. I just don't like it when the benefits are overstated and people try to make others feel guilty for not making the same decision as them.

"There was - and still isn't, as far as I know - enough contextual information about what the vaccine was for, and - crucially - the steps that women still need to take to ensure they're as protected as possible."

Exactly Absinthe!

"parents and their children with immune system disorders or other health conditions making HPV immunisation unadvisable are well aware of the situation before the children have reached this age"

You are assuming that it is only people with known disorders (and specifically immune system disorders) that will react badly. You don't know if that is the case. That is the problem with the current 'one size fits all' approach to medicine.

Can I ask a stupit question, which may already have been answered up thread.

If girls have the vaccine and boys don't.

Boy 1 -has HPV
Has sex with vaccinated girl 1

Can girl 1 sort of 'store' the virus, causing no damage to herself, but passing it on to boy 2, who then passes it on un-vaccinated girl 2? Or is the virus unable to attach itself to girl 1?

Mrs W Well obviously after cone biopsy, lazer treatment, possible cause of late miscarriage, risks to my births, lumpectomy, mastectomy, chemo I have told my daughters not to bother with checks and precautions because they have had an HPV jab just how patronising can you get?

Actually I think a far greater risk to our DDs is the risks of hormonal overload. Rates of all hormonal Cancers are rising, in men as well as women. So my DDs are not just aware of their risk and will not only take precautions and get regular checks but are aware of the steps they can take to limit lifelong exposure to Estrogen.

BUT they had the jab because it was one the easiest ways to reduce their risk.

As a mother it is my responsibility to ensure my daughters understand fully ALL the risks but I am certainly not going to tell them that it is OK not to have the jab because regular checks will pick things up early and it will be hunky dory anyway. My bad smear came 6 months after a healthy one, it was a work check up, another six months and the fast growing cancer would have killed me. The same by the way applied to my breast lump, I found a grade 3 2cm lump that gave me a 60% of survival 6 months after a clear mammogram. Checks can no more guarantee you won't get a life threatening illness than this jab can. They can only reduce risk.

I'm not trying to be patronising - just clear. You may know what you mean but other people reading your comments may take them differently.

I'm not suggesting that the checks will guarantee that you won't develop cancer either. Their purpose is to detect the cancer (or pre-cancerous cells) at an early stage to enable the most effective treatment.

If anything I think HPV jab will make people more inclined to have smears. Simply because they will be more aware of HPV and cervical cancer from a young age. During my sex ed we were told nothing of this. I think it will be useful in that respect. Also people still get reminded by their doctors when they are meant to gave smears, that doesn't stop!

I'm saying no to vaccinate dd but I understand that the vaccine might well safe her from a very serious disease. For me, the vaccine has risks and that's why I'm saying no.

As for vaccinating boys, that is a huge moral and ethical dilemma. The boys are having the vaccine to stop them passing the disease to girls. My ds can consent himself if he feels he wants to protect a future wife or daughter, that's fine, I can understand but for me, I object too much to the morals of vaccinating boys that I would say no to ds having the vaccine. Some boys will suffer irreversible side effects from a vaccine to prevent a disease that they were never going to get in the first place.

Boys can be affected by HPV as well:

www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv-and-men.htm

The risks of the HPV vaccine are incredibly small:

www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/hpv-vaccine-cervarix-gardasil-side-effects.aspx

DinoSnores, yes I know boys can be affected, but I'd never heard of any male cancer caused by hpv before this vaccine came out. I suspect that the risks are overplayed now there is a vaccine. It is surely, more to protect girls than anything else. Even if there were no risks to the vaccine, I couldn't, in all good conscience, consent to ds having it.

Why couldn't you consent? What if he wanted to? He's old enough to decide when they offer these.

". It is surely, more to protect girls than anything else. Even if there were no risks to the vaccine, I couldn't, in all good conscience, consent to ds having it"

The same applies to the rubella vaccine- it's main purpose is to protect unborn babies. Would you not let your children have that either?