This reminds me of the Luddites, who similarly opposed technological progress and change. But these people are even worse, because what they are opposing is a life-saving medical discovery. In their fanatical zeal to impose their "abstinence" program for controlling sexual activity, they are putting thousands of women's lives at risk. It is yet another example of the arrogance and intolerance of the Religious Right, and their determination to impose their religious and moral beliefs on everyone.
One of their points may be valid, though. They oppose the mandatory vaccination of pre-pubescent girls because they do not want their own children vaccinated. Apparently, they would rather see them die of cancer if they stray from abstinence. I have mixed feelings about this. As parents, do they have the right to put their children at risk? On the other hand, does the government have the right to override their wishes which are based on their religious beliefs?
It's an interesting question. I invite your comments.
Here is the article:
The Food and Drug Administration advisory panel approved a vaccine for the human papilloma virus (HPV) last week. The vaccine appears to be 100 percent effective at protecting against the most prevalent viruses that cause cervical cancer. While public health professionals view the vaccine as miraculous, many conservative organizations oppose it on the grounds that it might encourage promiscuity among adolescent girls. Now that the FDA has approved the vaccine, conservatives are already working feverishly to limit or even prevent its use.
The pharmaceutical giant Merck produced the vaccine, known as Gardasil, which will be nothing short of a lifesaver for countless women. Cervical cancer is the second most prevalent cancer killer among women in America, striking nearly 14,000 each year. Of those, nearly 4,000 die. Poor women and women of color will benefit the most from the vaccine, as Latino and black women suffer the highest rates of cervical cancer. Lower-income women typically lack the funds and health insurance necessary to have regular screenings for HPV.
Despite the benefits of the vaccine, conservative organizations began to rally against it last year. One of the most vocal opponents was the Family Research Council. The council, according to its mission statement, "promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society." Last October the council's president, Tony Perkins, spoke against the vaccine. "Our concern," he said, "is that this vaccine will be marketed to a segment of the population that should be getting a message about abstinence. It sends the wrong message." He went on to say that he would not vaccinate his 13-year-old daughter.
Yet another organization that promotes abstinence is the Physicians Consortium. The head of the consortium, Dr. Hal Wallis, is also critical of the vaccine. In his opinion, "If you don't want to suffer
these diseases, you need to abstain, and when you find a partner, stick with that partner." The founder of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse also opposes the vaccine. This organization was formed "to promote the appreciation for and practice of sexual abstinence (purity) until marriage." Leslee Unruh, the organization's founder, stated firmly, "I personally object to vaccinating children against a disease that is 100 percent preventable with proper sexual behavior."
Now that FDA approval is official, conservative organizations are strategizing to blunt acceptance of the vaccine. Much of this effort is directed toward the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This committee is a part of the Centers for Disease Control, and is responsible for establishing the classification of vaccines that the government recommends. This recommendation prompts states to require a particular vaccination, typically guarantees that insurance companies will cover it and determines the level of public funding.
In 2003 President Bush's secretary of health and human services appointed a medical doctor, Reginald Finger, to the ACIP. Until last fall, Dr. Finger was also the medical affairs analyst for Focus on the Family, the nation's largest and most powerful evangelical Christian organization. In an effort to gain the support of this group, Merck has been forced to aggressively lobby Focus. Merck has admitted holding numerous meetings with Dr. Finger at Focus headquarters. It's troubling that a vaccine manufacturer has to be concerned with securing the backing of a conservative Christian organization. And Merck is likely to have an uphill battle.
Although children are required to have various vaccinations before attending public schools, conservatives are against the ACIP recommending such a practice for the HPV vaccine. The Christian Medical & Dental Associations is an organization that "exists to glorify God by advancing Biblical principles in bioethics and health to the Church and society." The group's executive director, Dr. Gene Rudd, has stated, "While accepting HPV vaccine is morally acceptable, it should not be mandatory."
And the Family Research Council has gone even further. While testifying before an ACIP conference, the council's spokesman said: "Because parents have an inherent right to be the primary educator and decision maker regarding their children's health, we would oppose any measures to legally require vaccination. There is no justification for any vaccination mandate as a condition of public school attendance." And Focus on the Family issued a formal statement declaring that it "supports widespread (universal) availability of HPV vaccines but opposes mandatory HPV vaccinations for entry to public school."
But in most instances, parents can't pick and choose what vaccinations they want their children to receive in order to attend public schools. Children are required to be vaccinated against measles, mumps, chicken pox and various other diseases. Public health experts recommend that the HPV vaccine be administered to children at about ages 11 or 12, before sexual activity commences. And there's no scientifically defensible reason that it shouldn't be universally administered.
Of course, there's the rub: The objection to the HPV vaccine isn't based on science; rather, it comes from a biblically based squeamishness about premarital sex.
Religious values, however, shouldn't affect FDA approval or recommendation by the ACIP. From a public health perspective, we can't continue to allow conservatives to depict science as a cultural bogeyman.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 35
"I have nothing against the church"? This is only one among many, many things that you should have against the church. Christian leaders have been on the wrong side of science for 2,000 years.
Having sex with a partner who has had sex with a woman who had cervical cancer is one of the sexual-contact risk factors. A chaste woman who marries a man who had sex with a woman who had cervical cancer has a higher risk of getting cervical cancer. The male spouse could be a man widowed by the death of his wife from cervical cancer. In other words, everything could be on the up-and-up per the Family Research Council's standards, and a woman might get cancer.
Given this example, the fact that the exact cause of cervical cancer is unknown, and that there are other risk factors for cervical cancer, wouldn't it be immoral to exclude the daughters of the Family Research Council?
That's far too logical an argument for the Family Research Council
If the rule is don't lean over the edge of the grand canyon, does that mean we don't build a fence to keep people from leaning over the edge? Even if the church is right, it seems to me that they should advocate those protections for people who make what they would deem as a mistake. Anhyhow, anytime there is a cure for cancer discovered, it seems to me, that we should poor more money into that project. Understanding the differences between one cancer we can cure and another that we cannot, is precisely how we will eventually cure all cancer. At least tat's what I think.
Poor dears.
Cena...there are two groups of Republicans...the Religious Right bunch and the "business rules all" bunch. The problem is, the two groups often do not see eye-to-eye, and it is causing a schism in the GOP Naturally, this causes me much chagrin....NOT!!!!
"No, I can't have sex with you. I might get cervical cancer from it"
It's an excuse to let poor women die.
I don't think it is right not to immunize against it. The affected parties include more than those being immunized. Included are those in contact with that person. Given that fact, this is a public health concern.
Scene in a bar:
HE: You are really beautiful. I feel a great spiritual sense of oneness with you. Can we go to my place and make love?
SHE: Um, are you circumsized? I haven't had my cervical caner inoculation.
RE vaccinations: The government decided that "for the greater good" they would require all school children to be vaccinated against measles, mumps, rubella and whooping cough. They suppressed some research that showed that a small percentage of children might suffer adverse effects. Some parents choose not to immunize. Are they putting their children at risk, since there are still wild viruses existing? Are they putting the rest of the population at risk?
Next, Jehovah's Witnesses do not allow blood transfusion even to save a life. A court can order that they allow it for a child, at least I know of a case where they did. The child died anyway, and the parents did not want an autopsy. The court also ordered an autopsy. At what point do we tell the court to stop interfering?
Within the last year several cases of polio were found right here in my state- Minnesota. The cases were in a small religious community that didn't believe in vacinating their children.
Do religious communities have the right to propagate what the majority of the planet desires to extinguish? We need to make sure they don't!
Thanks for the article,
I was afraid the'd get sick or autism.
Now I know the vaccines are safe MOST OF THE TIME.
That said, I was not educated about vaccines, I had to learn where I could.
Why is the cervical cancer vaccine not getting a good overall education info to go with it?
How pompus, self righteous and un Jesus like to refuse a vaccine which (if proven to be safe) could save your child's life.
I am not sure the government should be involved in our child rearing. Some times they go too far. When life saving measures, such as vaccines, are available, they should be encouraged.
Mandatory? Not sure on that one.
BUT
What about sixth graders getting the vaccine from school if they want it?
Parents have control over their children's rights far too long in this society.
I think probably most kids would choose NOT to be vaccinated if they had a choice, though.
George...You're right. As I said, these people are worse than Luddites, but they have the same aversion to scientific progress.
Thanks for reawakening this thread. It's been sleeping for almost two months. In fact, the previous post was on June 19th which happens to be my wife's birthday. Wonders never cease. (Yawn)
Almost every medical procedure carries some risk. Doctors are supposed to explain the risks to a patient before any treatment is undertaken, and I think they usually do that without trying to force a positive decision.
My only reservation in allowing people to make decisions about treatments for their children is that some of them will not be as diligent as you were, or will make the decision based on religious or superstitious beliefs, needlessly endangering their children. The courts can act in flagrant cases and override the parents, but I think that is rare, and it's a difficult line to draw.
This vaccine is just as much of a lifesaver for women as the Pap smear was in its day. Were there similar arguments made about SIN and promiscuity? I don't know.
As a matter of fact, I have HPV. I don't know how in hell I contracted it, as I was not active at the time. But I did, more than 30 years ago. So far, no cancer. But I'm not crossing my fingers. I'm going to get the vaccine.