<p>To those who are against madatory HPV vaccination, did you opt out of Hep B? It is predominantly acquired via needle contamination (ie IV ddrug use) or sex, and not a disease “spread in school.” Yet it is required in our state for day care/preschool or kindergarten admission now, and first dose given as a newborn, with next two at 2 mos of age and 6 mos of age. When it became mandatory, we did not have the outcry that “it is no one’s business” and “I am not vaccinating my newborn against an STD or in case they become a drug addict.” Sure, health care workers are especially susceptable given blood exposure but the prime mode of transmission was always needles (with more cases being “dirty” needles) and sex. So why not just leave it up to health care and other workers to be vaccinated? It made sense for it to be mandatory, and administered as a newborn without the current outcry. But Hep B and HPV have similar issues. </p>
<p>My interest in mandatory vaccination with opt-out is without it, those who have money/insurance coverage will get it and those who do not will not. There will be no money designated for the vaccine in most states for the poor unless it is mandated. And all vaccines, whether the end result has to do with school exposure or not, historically tends to be tied to day care/preschool/ school admission.</p>
<p>Cur, the mothers in my practice who refuse to let their teens be vaccinated state that “my chld is not going to have sex until marraige and so she doesn’t need it.” I reply, what if her new husband has had 5-6 partners, and each of those partners had 1-2 partners, with maybe one having 25 partners. If you do the math, suddenly you D is exposed exponentially to many many partners. They tend to “get it.” But many still will not come to grips with a vaccine for a virus that is acquired sexually, even though that virus in turn can trigger changes at the cellular level and cause cervical cancer. ALso, some parents somehow think that getting the vaccine as in OK to their child to become sexually active. Very emotionally charged issue right now. They forget their newborn received Hep B vaccine for similar reasons.</p>
<p>Over the years, I have taken part early on in a couple of wonderful drugs/treatment programs that were FDA approved and widely celebrated…only to find out later that there were side-effects and long term effects that were later discovered. I’m hesitant to have my daughters jump to the front of the line on this. My daughter raised the same concern with the dr. before I had a chance to. We’re going to wait a bit.</p>
<p>Well-reasoned, sunny. Treat it as as the health concern it is. I remember being excited when I heard the news. I can’t wait for the next breakthrough that benefits my kid’s life (and her generation of females). And that’s my only agenda.</p>
<p>Aside from the argument you make, sunnyflorida, how many women are sexually assaulted? My girls are getting the vaccine. Then I can worry less about cancer causing HPV and more about antibiotic resistant gonorrhea, which is on the rise. My husband said he’s buying a huge supply of condoms for D before she goes to college, just in case.</p>
<p>Being opposed to mandating this vaccine at this time is not the same thing as being opposed to one’s child or everyone else’s child having it if each family so chooses. Why have those of you who are so quick to do the “not my child” thing not responded to the very real privacy issues? If your child had already been infected, would you want her entire school to be able to know that? Would you want it as part of a document that’s accessible to many people? Especially in a locality where privacy violations are legion? I wouldn’t. The difference between Hep B and HPV NOW is that Gardisil isn’t part of the early childhood package and would stand out. I also disagree that insured folks will have it and non-insured won’t. Here in NY, I think exactly the opposite will result. Again, I favor providing information and education, as well as a free vaccine for anyone who wants it, but I adamantly oppose giving the educational and health bureaucracy here power and information over young women’s body when there is not a communicability issue. This is after all the city in which a restaurant can pass a health inspection one day and have a colony of rats videotaped the next. Nope. Mutt and Jeff have no place in this decision.</p>
<p>Your plan works for me , too z-mom. I like sunny’s better but I can live with your’s , too. More importantly, lots of our children can . I don’t care for Mutt and Jeff either. I just want to save the kids that can be saved by this vaccine.</p>
<p>I actually agree with astrophysicsmom on this. It seems to me the drug companies are very quick to push these drugs on women, and then later discover that the side effects are far more dangerous than the original reason for taking the drug.</p>
<p>I have to add here that I think the TV ads that explicity state there’s a virus out there that causes cervical cancer, <em>without</em> pointing out that this is an STD (and not simply some contagious virus that one can pick up just by walking around) is misleading and somewhat irresponsible. These ads should state explicity that a woman cannot get this cervical cancer without first contracting HPV, and explain what this is and how one gets it… In addition, state explicity that not all strains of HPV cause cancer. This vaccine does not protect against all cervical cancer, either, which should be made clear as well.</p>
<p>I am a bit suspicious of a drug company trying to push this so far and so fast as a required vaccine for school attendance. Glaxo Smith-Kline is working on a drug, too, and some suggest that Merck is in a big rush to get this vaccine out there and approved, before GSK has a chance to get their vaccine approved, which I <em>think</em> is still under development. </p>
<p>More importantly, I do think this particular drug has not been tested long enough. I’m reminded of pregnant women back in the late 1940’s to early 1970’s who took the DES drug to prevent miscarriages. The grandchildren of those women, both male and female, have suffered effects (cancer) from that drug their grandmothers took. Not much testing went on there, either (not to mention all the other drugs, like HRT, that were pushed so readily in the beginning).</p>
<p>Actually, how much testing (short or long-term) has been done with Merck’s drug?</p>
<p>“Actually, how much testing (short or long-term) has been done with Merck’s drug?”</p>
<p>Not nearly enough, which is why they are quickly backing away from making it mandatory. I do think (and I can’t say why although I wish I could) that the emergence of other vaccines on the horizon has had an impact. That said, it’s a great thing and should be readily available. Just not mandatory.</p>
<p>I am not sure why getting it or not getting it would cause a child to stand out. Gardasil protects against 4 HPV subtypes, and even if one has been exposed and is under the age of 26, it is STILL recommended that they receive the vaccine as they are likely to have been exposed only to 1 of 4. And the aim of the recommendation to begin the vaccine at age 9-12 was to encorporate it into to vaccines that are generally mandated in middle school. In Florida, one must be up to date with MMR, and if the 2nd vaccine was somehow missed, it must be given prior to 7th grade. The TD must be updated prior to 7th grade, and if one is new to Florida and did not receive Hep B series yet, it is given prior to 7th grade. So the thinking here is that, HPV will be encorporated into the 6th/7th grade time when TD is due, and the others due if not completed prior. Right now, we will play catch up and offer it to everyone up to age 26. If we start making it routine at the middle school vaccine milestone, a generation of girls will grow up protected. The boys are currently in phase three clinical trials, and it most likely will be available to girls and boys. In an ideal world, the middle school milestone vaccines would all be recommended, and everyone would just have their child vaccinated. But too many would fall through the cracks. And in Florida, those not “poor” enough for Medicaid but who cannot afford $450 for three shots will not have access to it unless it is mandated. Once it is mandated, you can walk into any health dept in the state and get any mandated vaccine for free. Even if you are wealthy, you can get it at the health dept for free if is is a requirement for school. </p>
<p>And yet, sexual assault is a very goood reason to be protected. I just forgot to list this.</p>
<p>PS, DES was NEVER studied or FDA approved for use to prevent pregnancy loss. It’s use for that reason was “off label.” It was never ever studied for that indication, it was used based on anecdotal experience, and things were a bit different in the 50s and 60s. It was recognised that there were problems and most of its use ended in about 1964-1966.</p>
<p>“I am not sure why getting it or not getting it would cause a child to stand out”</p>
<p>I meant the documentation would stand out, not the child. As I said, the opt out feature here is quite onerous and requires very specific information and explanation. I respect your opinion and expertise, but I also respectfully submit that you have ignored the privacy implications of making this vaccine mandatory for school attendance. You’ve made a great case for administering the vaccine, but not for mandating it.</p>
<p>I strongly agree that it boils down to being a personal decision. But in my state, without mandates, too many will go without because of the cost. Thats all. And here, it is much easier to opt out, without the privacy implications. The opt-out forms etc are all kept at the pediatrician’s office or at the Health Dept. The care giver simply fills out the “blue form” for vaccinations, with a sign off on the vaccine with a simple opt out designation and date. To anyone going through a file, you would have to specifically take the time to look and see if the sign off was for the vaccine or the opt out. And school personel are held to the same HIPAA standards. One could easily make it so the physician or Health Dept signed off on the school form whether the vaccine was given or an opt out was signed, with only that office knowing the difference.</p>
<p>I get you now, thank you for responding so courteously, Sunny. I completely agree with you that it should be available for anyone who wants the vaccine and cost shouldn’t factor into the decision. Theoretically, school personnel are held to HIPAA standards as well, but that never happens here. Child health information, whether physical or mental, is compromised every day in schools. Perhaps that is an important issue that needs to be rectified here. Of course, in the nanny state privacy is anathema, so . . . Again thank you for your courtesy and expertise.</p>
<p>I’ve planning on starting the shots this summer. I hadn’t heard that it’s only effective for people who haven’t had sex. Can someone explain why for me? And is this heterosexual sex only? I don’t understand; sorry if this is obvious.</p>
<p>The only problem I have with this vaccine is that it is not also required for boys. If a girl contracts HPV, it is almost 100% certain that she contracted it from a boy.</p>
<p>corranged, it’s only effective for people who haven’t yet contracted HPV; if someone started having sex but had not contracted HPV, it would make sense to get the vaccine. But, like all vaccines, it’s a preventative measure, not a cure.</p>
<p>My D has had 2 of the 3. I do know that some practices here that are not recommending or giving it yet. One said they are not convinced that it is effective enough and want to see more studies.</p>
I just want to save the kids that can be saved by this vaccine.</p>