Schools denying girls the cervical cancer jab on religious grounds

[DowagersHump]

This is absolutely appalling. Even worse, they are not telling GPs that they are choosing not to offer vaccination :(

Grauniad article

I'd be interested in knowing exactly which schools are choosing not to offer the jab. Does anyone know?

And really, should't this be in the philosophy/religion topic, rather than feminism?

"To me, not wanting your daughter to have this vaccine in case she didn't then go for regular smears seems like not teaching your daughter to floss in case she then doesn't go for regular dental checkups"

no - not realistic or pragmatic - a very sentimental view i'm afraid

Blackcurrants - you obviously aren't interested or you would understand the problem with the safety studies. That's not climate change denial - that's protecting my daughter. If you want to expose yours, that's fine, and I won't insult you for it. Please don't insult me either.

"One of my concerns is cervical smear testing as we know it in the UK will diminish on the back of this vaccination"

Excellent point, aqnd an exccellent response to blackcurrants' empty dental floss analogy.

It's already happening. Smears being pushed back to age 25. I'll be paying for my daughter to have private smears befor ethat, if I have to.

"patriarchal control of young women's bodies/sexuality that's manifested in the particular reaction to this particular vaccine."

how ironic - this vaccine is really, really not about freeing young women

it's about men (mainly by a long long way men) making money

hth

I see the question has been changed from "...on religious grounds" to
"...on anti-vaccination grounds"

Many of the people involved in research and testing this vaccine were women, fwiw. I've interviewed some of them. Very passionate about the lives that could be saved by preventing HPV infection - one of them was a woman in her 40s who said she'd had the vaccine herself, even though they can't yet prove it's effective in people who have already been exposed to HPV - she thought the results were so promising it was a worth trying.

I didn't know that smear tests were being pushed back. That's really not good. What is the reasoning for that? Are they less effective/clear for younger women?

Smear years aren't offered to women under 25 for good reason. The developing cervix contains cells that appear abnormal under a microscope. They look suspicious but most of these 'abnomalities' resolve themselves.
But when abnormal cells are found, they have to be treated so, the patient would have to undergo treatment which they probably don't need. It's about false positives and the dangers of over treatment that dictate the age at which screening starts here.
There is no evidence to suggest that lowering the screening age will save any more lives.

Edam: you mean like Diane Harper? Feel free to google.

Forward: isn't it the case that most cases of HPV infection resolve themselves?

"There is no evidence to suggest that lowering the screening age will save any more lives."

Women under the age of 25 die of cervical cancer. In what way would their lives not have been saved by a cervical smear? In what way would their lives have been endangered by a screening.

A smear test is not a life-threatening intervention. Am amazed that a feminist would go along so easily with this reasoning.

PigletJohn: you could save your for the women and young girls damaged by the vaccine. These are not "ant-vaccination grounds". They are "crappy safety testing" grounds and "failure to use a proper control" grounds.

This is what one of the women Edam talks about says about Gardasil.

"Pap smears have never killed anyone. Pap smears are an effective screening tool to prevent cervical cancer. Pap smears alone prevent more cervical cancers than can the vaccines alone. Gardasil is associated with serious adverse events, including death. If Gardasil is given to 11 year olds, and the vaccine does not last at least fifteen years, then there is no benefit - and only risk - for the young girl. Vaccinating will not reduce the population incidence of cervical cancer if the woman continues to get Pap screening throughout her life.

If a woman is never going to get Pap screening, then a HPV vaccine could offer her a better chance of not developing cervical cancer, and this protection may be valued by the woman as worth the small but real risks of serious adverse events. On the other hand, the woman may not value the protection from Gardasil as being worth the risk knowing that 1) she is at low risk for a persistent HPV infection and 2) most precancers can be detected and treated successfully. It is entirely a personal value judgment."

This is her - Dr Diane Harper - "principal investigator (PI) for clinical vaccine trials" for Merck (Gardasil) and GlaxoSmithKline (Cervarix)

"I am an international expert in HPV science, its vaccines, its clinical disease and treatment. I have personally seen tens of thousands of women with abnormal Pap smears and have a referral clinic/office that includes women coming from all continents of the world to consult for my opinion on their personal care."

I wouldn't call her "anti-vaccination", PigletJohn.

There are girls and women adversely affected by this vaccine who are struggling to be heard. Who is listening to their voices? If HPV vaccine is a feminist issue, I fear you have taken the wrong side.

This girl's mother has been threatened with having her child taken into care because she refuses to accept the denial of the role of the vaccine in her condition

Edam: that "feel free to google" was sneery, I'm sorry.

Forwardscatter, presently screening is offered from the age of 20 in Scotland.

Edam, "Many of the people involved in research and testing this vaccine were women, fwiw. I've interviewed some of them. Very passionate about the lives that could be saved by preventing HPV infection - one of them was a woman in her 40s who said she'd had the vaccine herself, even though they can't yet prove it's effective in people who have already been exposed to HPV - she thought the results were so promising it was a worth trying."

Gardasil is produced by Merck and Co., and one has to admit it's PR team did an excellent job of having the government circumvent it's usual procedures to bring the vaccine into use and caused a frenzy of people wanting to vaccinate their DDs.
Merck and Co., incidently were the same company who were forced to withdraw Vioxx because of it's increased increased risk of heart attack and stroke associated with long-term, high-dosage use. It withheld information about the drugs risks from doctors and patients for over five years, resulting in between 88,000 and 140,000 cases of serious heart disease.

To go back to the original "on religous grounds/ fear of women being allowed to have sex" part of the debate - can you imagine if there was a cancer which caused death and/or infertility in men (in addition to various horrible things happening to the male anatomy used for sex) but which could be prevented by a jab before the boys become sexually active? Can you imagine anyone saying, "No don't worry, the boys are not going to have sex for ages, not till they're married so they won't be needing that thankyou." The most stringent religous groups would probably accept that the odd chap is going to fall through the net and therefore it's worth immuninsing everyone on those grounds. Also, do you think we would be prepared to wait for the boys to turn 13? Or do you think there would be an "earlier the better, you never can be quite sure" mentality?

I think that had this been an illness that affects men, there would have been no hue and cry in the press about underage sex, no debates about whether schools or GPs should offer it but instead general agreement that the fastest method for getting all vaccinated as quickly as possible (ie schools) was the best policy. I even suspect that there would have been fewer fears and worries on the "anti-vaccination/safety" grounds.

Good link Leonie but I was really shocked about the bill AB499, isn't that awful? Who do these people think they are? I would be after blood if that happened to my child.

Very true