Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Cervical Cancer Jab for all teen girls

122 replies

FlameInHell · 26/10/2007 09:04

What do you think?

Yay or nay?

OP posts:
SueBarooeeooeeooooo · 26/10/2007 10:44

I'm sort of ambivalent about it, as I am with a lot of immunizations.

We'd probably thoroughly educate the girls and let them decide for themselves about it.

Elffriend · 26/10/2007 10:45

Got to be a yay. Stupid headlines are no reason not to protect when we can. Sex jab indeed ROFL!

Neverenoughpumpkins · 26/10/2007 10:48

See my previous post: once GPs have been told the exact details of the programme then they will doubtless organise a protocol and call eligible girls in for a jab. At the moment I suggest you all leave it a short while as a) we need time for the DoH to deign to let us have the info and then work out the logistics and b) we are all in the middle of the flu vaccination programme at the moment!

SmartArseCoveredinCobwebs · 26/10/2007 10:48

I think we've paid about £500 for it privately. Certainly not cheap, but I have a GP friend who recommended I have DD immunised because, at 13, it might take the NHS a while to get around to "doing" her and it takes a couple of years for the vaccine to take effect, IIRC.

YeahBut · 26/10/2007 10:49

Whole-hearted yay!
How in the world can an immunisation which protects our daughters from cervical cancer possibly been seen as encouraging promiscuity? Having the rubella jab doesn't immediately make teenagers rush out and get pregnant.

colditz · 26/10/2007 10:49

That's where I would disagree with you Suebaroooo, reason being that I don't think 12 year olds are capable of making a decision that could cause them short term pain with long term gain. A lot of them wouldn't bother, as they have no comprehansion of their own mortality

SueBarooeeooeeooooo · 26/10/2007 10:56

Maybe not, but it would be part and parcel of the whole approach we take with the topic of relationships, which I've no doubt is very different to most others.

SmartArseCoveredinCobwebs · 26/10/2007 11:00

The doctor who gave DD her first jab (second was done by a nurse) told her in no uncertain terms that the only thing the jab might realistically protect her against was cervical cancer and she gave her a huge lecture on all the other diseases she will still be exposed to when she has sex, then a good 5 minutes on contraception too. Showed her all sorts of vile pictures! DD was and but I was [grin}! Hope she's not scarred for life ...!

mixedmama · 26/10/2007 11:09

I am going to ask a very stupid question but is cervical cancer something you can only get once you have had sex and not a cancer in the same way that you get cancer of the liver etc. sorry to sound silly, i just had no idea and just immediately thought it had to be good to vaccinate.

beautifuldays · 26/10/2007 11:15

does this vaccine only protect against the sexually transmitted form of the disease? i.e.- is there any point me getting the vaccine?

eidsvold · 26/10/2007 11:18

yay yay yay - developed by an aussie and available for all girls/young women within a certain age group - will be getting my three vaccinated when they are old enough.

Suedonim - if your 20yo was here she could get the vaccine as part of the national program.

12 - 26yo can get it here as part of the national vaccine program - so free!

beautifuldays · 26/10/2007 11:19

i'm 24 so is there any benefir to me paying privately to have this vaccine.

also does it protect against all forms of the disease - as in will smear tests be no more?

SueBarooeeooeeooooo · 26/10/2007 11:20

beautifuldays, I think once you're sexually active there's not much point - it won't have any effect if you already have the virus, from what I've read. The reason they've suggested 12 is to attempt to reach girls before they become sexually active.

SueBarooeeooeeooooo · 26/10/2007 11:21

No, not all forms of Cervical cancer, sadly.

eidsvold · 26/10/2007 11:21

brochure here

Neverenoughpumpkins · 26/10/2007 11:22

The vast majority of cervical cancers are associated with the HPV but as always with medicine, never say never!

Neverenoughpumpkins · 26/10/2007 11:23

So therefore there are no plans to stop the cervical screening Programme either.And yes this vaccine is aimed at the pre-sexually active girl.

beautifuldays · 26/10/2007 11:25

ah ok, can't get that link to work eidsvold

eidsvold · 26/10/2007 11:31

click on campaign materials to the side

then scroll down to brochures for the young woman.

suedonim · 26/10/2007 11:43

That's an excellent service, Eidsvold, lucky women.

spookthief · 26/10/2007 11:48

I'm really pleased this is coming it. It would be a tragedy if some girls were missed out because of some ill-conceived ideas about it promoting promiscuity.

SueBaroo, from reading other posts by you I know that you have a very responsible attitude to educating your dds about relationships, but I hope other people who may opt-out their dds make sure they stress to them how important it is they have this jab before embarking on any sexual relationship.

tribpot · 26/10/2007 12:50

A good friend of mine has been a significant campaigner for the vaccination working with Jo's Trust. She was diagnosed with cervical cancer 5 weeks after her wedding and has gone on to have aggressive treatment that has left her in early menopause and, of course, infertile.

To quote from the site: "Research states that 75% of the world's population (men and women) will come into contact with HPV at some time during their lives".

I can't believe there was any such controversy about the rubella vaccine when it was introduced, although maybe that was viewed differently because it was about protecting the unborn child rather than protecting women's health

obabadabobba · 26/10/2007 12:52

in terms of cost...

how much is this vaccine programme costing?

megabucks, I imagine

how much does this type of cervical cancer cost the nhs?

an awful lot I'm sure

how much does it cost to screen couples who are in a long term relationship who choose NOT to use condoms (or for having a baby)?

not as much as the first option.

I would hazzard a guess to say that screening is cheaper and at the same time sends out a message that these kids need to be responsible for their own sexual health.

I feel strongly that we need to start taking more responsibility and care of ourselves, diet, fitness, physical and mental health. the attitude needs to shift and it is shifting slowly but protecting our own sexual health is something that we can all do without fail (thanks to screening) that is where money needs to be poured into imo.

(but it won't ever be because someone somewhere is making too much money with all these lovely expensive drugs being sold in their bjillions.)

vaccines are such a political issue and should be thought about very carefully before consenting on behalf of dc.

I urge anyone to read the doh advice book on childhood immunisations that is given out to g.p's. it makes very interesting reading, and could possibly make you a bit

obabadabobba · 26/10/2007 12:54

ok by 'these kids' I mean 'everybody'

SueBarooeeooeeooooo · 26/10/2007 12:59

The vaccine costs £300 I think. I don't think it's as easy as just encouraging people to take responsibility (which I agree with btw).

In our situation, even if our girls do wait until marriage, there's no guarantee their husbands will have done. My husband was a virgin when we married, but I wasn't (by a country bleedin' mile).

There's all sorts of permutations to consider (but I do agree about thinking carefully about vac. but I think that about any medical thing, because we have brains for a reason... )