Page 3 | Cervical Cancer Jab for all teen girls

minorityrules · 26/10/2007 13:10

so obabadbobba, you think everyone should wait to be in a very long relationship, then get screened for this virus everytime??

I will be getting my girls jabbed and they are very aware of their sexual health, are happy to visit the dr's to discuss and have taken friends to family planing clinics when the need arose and have no embarassment where sexual matters are concerned

The virus, although sexually transmitted isn't something you can protect yourself from that easily, as most people have been exposed but no one knows they have, due to lack of symptoms

Education helps stop promiscurity, not the other way around

minorityrules · 26/10/2007 13:11

Oh and I have had treatment for very dodgy cells so I must have had the virus too

Anna8888 · 26/10/2007 13:11

That's expensive .

I just checked the price in France and when Gardasil was first put on the market a year ago it cost 145.94 euros a shot and you need three shots, so more or less the same price that Sue mentions.

It also says in the article that the vaccination is most effective if administered to girls before they become sexually active.

SmartArseCoveredinCobwebs · 26/10/2007 13:20

According to my GP friend, the idea is that screening will eventually be phased out because everyone will have been vaccinated. I have absolutely no idea whether or not this is the case though and I'm happy to be corrected by anyone who knows better! My friend is a GP, not a consultant specialising in that area, and I don't know where she got that information from.

anightmareonMegletstreet · 26/10/2007 13:23

If the jab turns out to be 100% foolproof then screening out smears for future generations would make sense.

Neverenoughpumpkins · 26/10/2007 13:27

Oh that's interesting Smartarse(loving typing that sentence!)
I'm a GP too and I've not heard that it's planned to phase it out. Your friend may well know better.However wouldn't surprise me as the Gov't like to keep us in the dark!

SmartArseCoveredinCobwebs · 26/10/2007 13:33

So I hear, Neverenoughpumpkins! It's her biggest complaint, I think!

I try not to assume she knows absolutely everything about health, just because she's a doctor, but I followed her advice on this occasion because she has 2 DDs of her own and will definitely be vaccinating them. She's jolly useful on holiday, though - can sort anything from in-growing toe-nails to near-drowning with her bag of tricks!

constancereader · 26/10/2007 13:33

A yay from me too.

Neverenoughpumpkins · 26/10/2007 13:37

Yes all my friends love having a personal medical attendant also! And since I specialise in giving advice it generally is ok with me too!
I have 3 DDs and will definitely be vaccinating them(but decided to wait until it's free lol!)

Beelliesebub · 26/10/2007 13:39

A huge yay from me too....

juuule · 26/10/2007 13:55

I thought hpv was responsible for around 70% of the cases of cervical cancer. Surely that means that 30% of cases are due to something else. I don't see why they would get rid of screening if there are still some women at risk.
Would that be one of the dangers of the vaccine in that anyone who had had it would think they were unable to develop cervical cancer and so might not have a smear test and by the time they had symptoms it would be too late for treatment.

Piccalilli2 · 26/10/2007 14:00

Yay, definitely yay. Anything that may prevent my dd and others having to go through the unpleasant and frightening experience I have had of endless rounds of positive smears, colposcopies and treatment for pre-cancerous cell changes, not to mention how much worse it could have been...
I think it's frankly ridiculous to suggest giving 12 yr olds the jab is going to make them rush out and become sexually active - quite apart from anything else there are any number of very nasty diseases they'll still be able to catch from unprotected sex.

TheYoungVisiter · 26/10/2007 14:05

On the subject of the notion that the jab will somehow encourage girls to be irresponsible about sex, TBH I don't think I'd even heard of HPV when I first became sexually active. The fear of pregnancy and AIDS were the main things that worried me.

I don't think HPV even enters into the equation for most teenage girls, they're either sensible for a multitude of reasons that will not be affected by the jab, or else too roaring drunk to remember to take their knickers off, let alone use protection. Now if there were a jab against excess consumption of WKD and 20-20...

spookthief · 26/10/2007 14:08

I would go so far as to say that fear of HPV doesn't enter the equation for even one girl, anywhere, when it comes to making the decision whether or not to have sex .

obabadabobba · 26/10/2007 14:19

you are right juuule, and it is a worrying thought.
what about the girls that will be vaccinated against hpv but it will not 'work'. the vaccine is not 100%, just like any other vaccine. does that mean it's just tough luck for them. as those girls would be at less risk of the disease if they had had protected sex and then screened (both partners) when wanting unprotected sex and at the same time took regular smear tests.

minority, yes, I believe that everybody should take responsibility for their own sexual health and have screening before having sex without protection.
sti screening is available to us all now for a very good reason.

obabadabobba · 26/10/2007 14:21

well in that case theyoungvisitor and spookthief, we should make damn sure that these girls DO know about the risks of cervical cancer when having unprotected sex don't you think?

obabadabobba · 26/10/2007 14:24

or is the only time you tell them about it when you are giving them the vaccine that might prevent it?

makes little sense to me.

TheYoungVisiter · 26/10/2007 14:30

Obab, yes I agree of COURSE we should educate girls as much as possible, but at the same time we have to be realistic and recognise that all the education in the world may not alter their choices. Witness the amount of time and effort spent in schools educating about the risk of smoking, and the number of kids puffing away at the bus-stop immediately after.

And of course there are many reasons for not having unprotected sex, of which HPV is only one (and arguably not the most important one).

However until kids are old enough to make truly sensible decisions (which would be ooo... about the age of 45 or thereabouts) I think I would take a "better safe than sorry" attitude.

Plus, as we've already discussed, even with the safest sex in the world, you could still pick up the virus in the context of a loving, long-term relationship. It's very common and most men will not know whether they are carriers or not.

Like I said, unless you are 100% certain that your child will NEVER have unprotected sex, even to the extent of not conceiving a child, then I would argue the jab is a good thing.

Neverenoughpumpkins · 26/10/2007 14:36

obabadabobba, screening for all STIs is not practical, affordable, or possible -I give you HSV(herpes) as an example.
This vaccine is part of protecting young women against one STI that may cause cervical carcinoma.
Clearly, sex education, contraceptive advice and arming teenagers with the ability to make informed choices are also part of the equation.
Also, GU clinics are massively oversubscribed as it is.

Elffriend · 26/10/2007 14:36

Obab, do you honestly beleive that all young girls are sat down and told about ANY risks before they go off to have uprotected sex? It's not like most of them tell anyone that they are planning on having sex before they go there. Sorry, I may not have studied this thread closely enough but I'm not sure why vaccination and eductaion should be treated as an 'either/or' anyway.

Surely we should educate as much as possible but protect where we can as well? I try to avoid mosquitos on holiday but i take the malaria pills as well. (not a great analogy, but you know what I mean)

SueBarooeeooeeooooo · 26/10/2007 14:45

I presume the anti-vac argument rests on the wider argument which I think ScaremyVile mentioned on the abortion thread - the notion of removing the onus to act responsibly because 'it's ok, I've been vaccinated'. Sadly there are many young people who are convinced there's a cure for HIV/AIDS, and coupled with an 'invincible teen' aura, it is at least conceivable that this could send out the wrong sort of messages.

rebelmum1 · 26/10/2007 14:48

If the vaccine was completely safe and there were no adverse reactions then it's a consideration, if the rally to mass vaccinate was entirely funded by the drug company and there was not extensive research into potential adverse reactions I would personally think twice or weigh up the risks against the risks of my 12 yr old contracting an STD

www.wddty.com/03363800372417435105/hpv-vaccine-gardasil-may-be-a-killer.html

www.wddty.com/03363800370531723589/cervical-cancer-calls-for-compulsory-v accine-programme-is-funded-by-the-manufacturer.html

I certainly would be asking questions and wouldn't be believing everything I hear, taking it at face value. But that's just me.

anightmareonMegletstreet · 26/10/2007 14:52

but its not a 'normal' STD. Its one that might kill you. While chlamydia, herpes etc will make you ill and can do irreparable damage you'll still live. With HPV it may lead to cancer. And you only have to have unprotected sex once to get its, its not like the accumalative effect of smoking or sunbathing too much.

expatinscotland · 26/10/2007 15:04

hurray!

so glad to see this!

6 years ago, i donated my biopsy sample for medical research into this vaccine.

i have two strains of HPV which increase a woman's risk of developing cervical cancer.

these strains can be contracted without having sexual intercourse.

most of the sexually active human population have at least one strain of HPV, but because it is symptomless in men (not talking about the strains that cause genital warts), so it's great to see this vaccine.

obabadabobba · 26/10/2007 15:18

theyoungvisitor, I had already posted about the need for both couples to get screened before deciding to have unprotected sex, not just to prevent the hpv, but for all sti's.

also your point re smoking.. it is not uncommon now, and will be the norm in the future for patients to be refused treatment in serious cases if they ignore health advice. this kind of thing goes some way to drip feed the notion that we must take responsibility for our own health.

this campaign goes some way to un-do that notion.

pumpkins, if gu med wasn't so under-funded then it wouldn't be so over-prescribed. if it has lots of 'punters' then surely this safe-sex message needs to be shouted a little louder. throw some money that way.

the hpv vaccine is going to help with that problem but by going all out on sexual health education will help to kill lots of birds with one stone. more to the point, one condom will prevent more than one disease.

I'm not into scaremongery, nor have I yet read anything on the possible harmful effects of the vaccine, but who knows what it has/might throw up.

although the problem with drugs is that the research into it's safety is most often carried out, allbeit indirectly, by the very people who pocket the profit from sales; the pharmacuitical companies.