surely this is evidence that state funded faith schools are run by total nutters

[Reallytired]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7633761.stm

I cannot understand why a school should not want to be involved in the vacination programme against cervial cancer. It may be true that the HPV is sexually transmitted, but a good catholic wife could end up with cervial cancer if her husband has an affair.

Prehaps the catholic school governors think that cervial cancer is a well deserved punishment, in the same way that a few strange people thought that homosexuals deserved AIDS.

Should such people be allowed run state funded schools. Especially as the mainstream Catholic Church doesn't object to the vaccine.

What are the chances of severe side affects? Even then a GP surgery would not have the facilites, they would have to ring and ambulance, just like a school.

I worry more about woman dying needlessly of cancer in the future because they have not had the jab.

I must be a nutter. I'm not allowing my girls this vaccine.

No SaintRiven you are not a nutter.

Is one thing for a parent to decide for their daughter not to have a vaccine, its another for a school to put obsticles in the way of girls getting their vacination.

I think that the school governors are nuts for allowing parents to make the choice whether their daughters have the vaccine at school or not.

Its completely different.

The side effects business is a red herring. Most, if not all, of us will have had our imms at school. I remember having boosters at primary, and rubella and BCG at secondary. And I certanly never hung around at the GP after my LOs had their imms. Unless they're going to have an anaphylactic reaction, any reaction will be hours later.

The school governers obviously luddites. some people don't want the benefits of modern medicine, which is fine for you and yours. But to prevent the vaccine being given to a whole school of girls is immoral IMO. They were going to add it to the baby vaccines but wanted to offer protection to as many girls as possible so went for 12 year olds. This vaccine will save lives, side effects are not only extremely rare, but they are also not life threatening.

Yes, but the school found, when its pupils participated in the pilot study, that in practice far from side effects being extremely rare many of the girls had painful and distressing (though not life-threatening) side-efects and several required a day off school. It seems quite reasonable to decide that it's not wise for the school to put an entire year group of 12-year-olds through that at once.

I did hang around at the GPs after my DCs' injections. Because the point of waiting is in case of anaphylactic shock.

THEY BEND THEIR KNEES TO A FOREIGN POWER!

I would love to know if the govenors have got studies showing side effects outside of their own small study.
I believe they are trying to do their best and need their concerns talked through , and that they are not castigated. I understand that this vac has been sucessfully given in loads of countries so far with no contraindications.
After that the kids should be lined up....

in the same way the vacs are always given (with the stoic kids toughing it out and the flakey ones -usually the form bullies-having a nervy b.) 'tis school life.
My two will def be in the line for this jab as well as for the booster tetanus,heah test and tb jab etc etc.. in their cafflick school

fallen madonna - st monica's IS a catholic school. lapin was saying why do you think that their point of view is just because of that rather than because they have considered the facts.

browntrout, perhaps because previously they had said they disapproved on moral grounds and only now have come up with another reason.

LOL at Ian Paisley Bossykate

I don't think it's an unreasonable to think they are basing this on religion/morals.

They say:

Although some religious groups are opposed to the vaccine because of fears it may encourage promiscuity, the governors make no moral objection to the programme>>

But then you hear Monsignor John Allen, one of the governors saying "Morally it seems to be a sticking-plaster response. Parents must consider the knock-on effect of encouraging sexual promiscuity"

He clearly thinks that this is a vaccine that turns innocents into sluts. Which doesn't quite fit in with the "the governors make no moral objection to the programme"

And all that about questioning the effectiveness of the vaccine. Which of the governers are qualified to judge that?

If the parents want to say no that's ok by me. If the parents refuse it on religous grounds I will still be disgusted, but they have the right to decide.

This from Anne Karpf a while ago in The Guardian. Here's the link to the full article if you're interested:

here

I'm more angry than sceptical, both about Gardasil itself, and the way it's being sold.

This is what concerns me. Not just that Gardasil works on only four strands of HPV when there are between 15 and 40 that can cause cancer. Or that some serious adverse reactions include convulsions and numbness. (Most medicines, even alternative, produce some adverse reactions.) No, what's really disquieting about this public health campaign is that most cases of HPV clear up of their own accord - a healthy immune system knocks it on its head. It's pretty bad reasoning not to understand that, although 99% of invasive cervical cancer is caused by HPV, this doesn't mean that 99% of HPV causes invasive cervical cancer. Only a small percentage of women infected with HPV go on to develop cervical cancer, and other factors, such as smoking, seem to be partly responsible.

How long will Gardasil be eff ective? No one knows if the immunity it confers will last longer than four or fi ve years without a booster, so it could run out just as a girl is becoming sexually active, providing her with a false sense of security. Could it cause fertility problems or birth defects? No one knows this either. Perhaps this is why some doctors claim that the mass vaccination programme is using young girls as guineapigs. The New England Journal of Medicine last year urged caution because of "unanswered questions, duration of protection, and adverse effects that may emerge over time".

This made me cross as I feel it's for the parents to decide about girls having the vaccine, not school governors. As the vaccine won't be given in GPs surgeries this decision by the school could leave girls that wish to be vaccinated unvaccinated.

Regarding safety, the nurses who give the vaccine (I am one) stay in school for a period after all girls have been vaccinated to ensure there are no anaphylactic or serious reactions. We have a resuscitation box, are fully trained in anaphylaxis and resuscitation and can deal with a reaction quickly as the girls are in school after having the vaccine. We are doing our immunisations in the mornings so the girls are in school for some time after their jabs, and we can return if the teachers have any concerns about any of the girls.

Lio - that article is outdated; we're not using Gardasil.

"Out of interest, are the 30% of parents that did not consent to their daughters taking part in the trials, "nutters" too? "

No, its OK not to take part in medical research.

" Bearing in mind that academic studies estimate that overall national takeup could be under 80%, are those 20% of parents nutters too? "

They are making the decision for their own daughter. They are not making a decison about an entire school.

Yes, nutters. Speaking as someone who had stage 3 cervical pre cancer. If you don't want your dd to have the vaccination, fine (although she won't thank you for this if she then goes onto get cervical cancer or precancer) but to deprive other girls of this potentially life saving vaccination is irresponsible. Any girls who go on to contract the disease who were not allowed to have it on school premises have the right to be incredibly angry with the school. I'd sue. As for side effects, it has been proven to be an extremely safe vaccination. If you're going to ban this on health grounds (!?) then really you shouldn't let any food be eaten on school premises since this is much more likely to result in allergic reaction, food poisoning etc. Stupid.

And the link between having a vaccination and rushing out to sleep with someone is even more bonkers. As if girls really factor this into the reason why they do or don't sleep with someone. And condoms not as effective as prevention as they are for other STIs.

Doesn't matter Lio. If it saves even a few people's lives it's worth having. If it prevents even a few women getting cervical cancer then it's worth having.

''Justin McCracken, chief executive of the Health Protection Agency, added that it was "safe, proven and effective against 70% of cervical cancer".

He told the conference that cervical cancer was the second most common cancer in women worldwide, and that the vaccine could eventually cut rates by three-quarters by 2011.

A spokesperson for the Department of Health explained: "Given that this vaccine will save the lives of up to an estimated 400 women each year, and in the absence of any scientific evidence that points to safety concerns, it would be irresponsible to raise inappropriate fears over HPV vaccine safety." '

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/sep/26/cancer.vaccine

"And condoms not as effective as prevention as they are for other STIs. "

Good catholics don't use condoms.

When I was nine years old my best friend's mother died of cervial cancer. The poor woman was only 33 years old and my best friend really needed her mum. The poor girl had barely started middle school.

It makes me want cry to think what the family went through both before and after the mother's death. Cancer leaves a whole trail of suffering.

Even if more women are convinced that they aren't at risk so don't get smear tests and die from cervical cancer that previously would have been picked up at a treatable stage? Even if replacement with other oncogenic strains of HPV takes place (so women just get different strains of cervical cancer)? Even if it affects natural immunity against HPV so that some other women get cervical cancer?

Those are the sorts of questions that haven't yet been answered.