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 .

Yes - isn't that the whole bloody point of vaccinations ? For the many to protect the vulnerable?

Itsbetterthanabox, yes, if he consents that's his decision, that's fine, nothing I can do about it. Sure he'll do lots of things in life that I don't agree with. But for now, they are not vaccinating boys so he can't consent.

Hakuluyt,I I have a similar objection to the rubella vaccine, my dc haven't had it.

Yes TheBogqueen, it is and it raises huge ethical and moral issues.

Ah. The "I'm all right Jack" anti vaccine "argument". Depressing.

Hakluyt, are you saying that I should risk my child to help another child? Will someone's whose child needs protecting by my child having a vaccine be along to help me when my vaccine damaged child needs round the clock care? I think not!

Therefore, I have to put my child's needs first.

I think that if you have a healthy child with no contraindications for vaccination, then yes, you do have a moral responsibility to vaccinate. Because there are children who can't be vaccinated who could be killed by the diseases that vaccination controls.

But I believe in society.

Hakluyt, some healthy children with no contraindications will be permanently damaged by the vaccine they didn't need. I can't morally risk putting my child into that category. At least for the hpv, it has the potential to protect most girls, I say, most, because ,, some will never have sexual contact so should I risk my child now in case she does. What a dilemma!

Since you believe in society, will you be along to help the families of children who are damaged by a vaccine to help someone else?

Why assume your son will only ever have heterosexual sex, Side. Oh, boys get genital warts, too.

LeftRightCentre, it's all a lot of assumptions isn't it?

I'm not interested in preventing genital warts, I mean it would be nice but not if it means risking my child with a vaccine. We've never been bothered about genital warts before and now there's a vaccine everyone is saying we need to prevent genital warts. The vaccine manufacturers must be laughing all the way to the bank!

Genital warts are not life threatening, this vaccine for boys, is a bridge too far for me.

The number of people "permanently damaged" by modern vaccines is vanishingly small compared to the people permanently damaged by the diseases vaccines protect them from.

It's a risk/benefit analysis and vaccination always comes out on top.

Who's we? Because I am not ignorant enough to think companies make vaccines just for the money. I also think genital warts are horrific. I have never had them, but worked in a women's clinic where, thankfully, healthcare professionals were very bothered by them and the suffering of their patients who had them (can be dangerous, too, for a woman with them to deliver a baby vaginally).

Males get them, too.

But hey, it's only your son's health and well-being. I give a really big damn about my son's and am glad to hear this vaccine is being extended to include boys.

"I have a similar objection to the rubella vaccine, my dc haven't had it. "

So you don't mind if your grandchildren are deaf and blind? Nice.

Hakluyt I agree it's a risk benefit thing but for me vaccination doesn't come out on top.

LeftRightCentre, I give a damn too about my sons health, that's why I'm avoiding the vaccine.

duhgldiuhfdsil, grandchildren are an unknown variable. Of course , if my child is damaged by a vaccine, there will be no grandchildren. I'll leave the grandchildren as an unknown variable for now.

It doesn't come out on top because you are, whether you put it like this or not, relying on other people vaccinating their children. Which, I have to say, I find morally reprehensible, particularly if you think vaccination is a very risky thing to do.

I have looked at the evidence, and I know that vaccination is not a very risky thing to do. So I don't mind contributing to the herd immunity that protects your child. Not sure how you justify your stance, though.

SideOfFoot, if a significant percentage of parents take this stance about vaccines there would be many many more health risks for all our children. So it is an irresponsible and selfish argument. You are relying on other parents taking action in order for your own children to be healthy.

"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. "

That doesn't seem to be the case so far. Also, as absinthe pointed out, the information given is quite limited.

For some people the vaccine is more of a risk than the diseases that they may not get or may not cause them permanent harm. At the moment we have no definitive way of detecting who those people are so it would be nice if people stopped judging others for making the best decision they can. You don't know any better than they do whether your child/or theirs will be one of the few who reacts badly. You may be prepared to risk it. They aren't. Can we stop with the criticism and snide little remarks.

"you are, whether you put it like this or not, relying on other people vaccinating their children"

Are you talking about rubella or HPV here?

My remarks aren't snide. Anything but, I would say!

It wasn't your remarks that I was calling 'snide'.

I think that if you have a healthy child with no contraindications for vaccination, then yes, you do have a moral responsibility to vaccinate.

Yy

How can you say it stops people having smears when the age of the first people to have the vaccine hasn't reached being old enough to have smears yet?
Unless you are someone who has severe allergies you are very unlikely to react. If you didn't do anything that could possibly cause a reaction in anyone you would literally do nothing.

""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. "

That doesn't seem to be the case so far. Also, as absinthe pointed out, the information given is quite limited."

Evidence please.

its better - it's the effect being seen in other countries where they introduced the vaccine earlier/start screening earlier.

It's not only people with allergies who react to vaccines. The first time many people realise that they shouldn't have had the vaccine is after they have reacted badly to it.

Hakluyt - I linked to an article upthread about people are becoming complacent about smears. From chatting to people who work in public health, it is definitely something they are worried about and are trying to increase awareness of in the UK after seeing the effect in other countries. As mentioned already, there is hope that a new, urine based test, will increase uptake of screening.

The first time many people realise that they shouldn't have had the vaccine is after they have reacted badly to it.

Many people? How many vaccine reactions are there per year in the UK that have an effect lasting more the 72 hours? "Many" is an incredibly high threshold, and what most people would say is a wild, paranoid exaggeration. Who are these "many" people who are reacting to vaccines in a serious way?

"The first time many people realise that they shouldn't have had the vaccine is after they have reacted badly to it."

Tell me about these "many" people.......

I'm not saying that 'many' people react. I'm saying of the people that do react many of them had no idea that they would.