Machine Nation

Irish Politics Forum - Politics Technology Economics in Ireland - A Look Under The Nation's Bonnet


Devilish machinations come to naught --Milton
 
PortalPortal  HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log in  GalleryGallery  MACHINENATION.org  

Share | 
 

 Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2  Next
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:24 pm

Is this the case - is Reilly vaccinating 12-year old girls himself out of his own pocket or the pocket of Fine Gael ?

I saw this on the front of the Daily Mail.


Last edited by Auditor #9 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:28 pm

Can we stop calling him Dr James O'Reilly... alot of people are doing that. The man's name is James Reilly. There is no "O' ".
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:33 pm

It just rolls off the tongue with an 'O' in front though.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:49 pm

Auditor #9 wrote:
Is this the case - is Reilly vaccinating 12-year old girls himself out of his own pocket or the pocket of Fine Gael ?

I saw this on the front of the Daily Mail.
Himself & a group of local doctors are giving their time free with the costs being paid by local businesses.

And no, it's not a political stunt and he's not using 12 year old girls to try to embarrass Harney. He's at a loss to explain how this story even got on the national airwaves.
Back to top Go down
Ex
Fourth Master: Growth
avatar

Number of posts : 4226
Registration date : 2008-03-11

PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:53 pm

The vaccine is paid for by four local businessmen and will be administered free of charge by local GPs.

Cancer society welcomes vaccine scheme

Irish Times wrote:
The 300 girls in north Dublin being offered the HPV vaccine free of
charge by Fine Gael health spokesman Dr James Reilly and other GPs are
all 12 years old. They are in sixth class in schools in Balbriggan,
Skerries, Rush, Lusk, Loughshinny, Corduff, Hedgestown and Balscadden.

The vaccines, which will be administered
next Saturday, were bought by a consortium of four local businessman
and will be given free of charge by GPs.

However, Charter Medical will also be doing it on a non-profit basis for the price of €300. There are 3 injections in the course.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:29 pm

I would hazard a guess that the consortium mentioned here are not paying the full price (€300) to acquire these vaccines. It would be a fairly good ploy for the manufacturer to sell them cheap on a scheme like this piling pressure on the Government to implement a national immunisation programme which would of course net the manufacturer a whole lot of dosh.

People should be more concerned with Smear Testing than the vaccine, though both are relevant. There are plenty of people, particularly those from poorer socio-economic groups, who walk around for years carrying this bacteria and never have a smear test. It can take up to 10 years for that bacteria to form into cervical cancer but if regularly smear tested and treated early it is fully treatable. Of course it would help if more surgeries working in such areas were able to afford a full time nurse to carry out the smear tests.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:36 pm

Let me see... This vaccine is very expensive, it is not needed by anyone, it is not very effective (be any standards), and it is quite dangerous (even though the "health" authorities say it is quite safe).

I wonder what Reilly is up to. I also wonder: Why do most people who dislike paying tax want this vaccine injected into every young girl at taxpayers' expense?

One thing I'm sure of: Reilly and the "health" authorities want parents to accept unquestioningly the assertion that the vaccine is "safe".

I don't buy it, and I don't want it, and I don't want it funded by public money.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:49 pm

There are certainly a lot of issues here. Yes, the people making the cuts are feckless and immoral. Does that make the vaccine right? Not necessarily.

Personal hygiene, boys please read: this is the cheapest and easiest way of reducing the incidence of cervical cancer -

(last paragraph)
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=299097&rel_no=1

Cervical cancer is almost unknown amongst orthodox jewish people, who are squeaky clean as part of their culture.

The vaccine only targets some of the HPV virus types and it isn't known how long it is effective. There is reason to believe that the uneffected virus types will proliferate if the others are eliminated and will take up their space. There is a massive PR campaign from the companies that manufacture the drug to persuage us that every girl should have it.

Cervical cancer is very detectable at pre cancerous stage and can be zapped cheaply and easily under local anaesthetic by laser at that stage. By the time there a symptoms, it is often too late to treat successfully.

With the vaccine, there is a danger of people feeling too safe and not getting smear tests. The vaccine does not deal with all types of HPV virus.

We are one of the few countries that don't have a 6 monthly or annual screening programme. This is leading to thousands of unneccessary deaths. Fianna Fail keep saying they are "rolling out" a screening programme. This is by far the most important measure. Does anyone know what it is and when it is starting? And will there be resources to quickly treat pre-cancerous cells when they are found?

So, in my book, we should be getting on with the screening (and laser treatment) programme, and handing out free carbolic Smile
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:59 pm

cactus flower wrote:
Fianna Fail keep saying they are "rolling out" a screening programme. This is by far the most important measure. Does anyone know what it is and when it is starting?

The screening programme has already started and has been advertised on the television over the past few weeks. Screening is at your GP and is free. I think they recommend those under 40 to have it every 3 years but I'm not sure whether or not you can get it free more regularly if your doctor advises, I think that is the case but I will ask when I get home later.

Will it result in a huge uptake in people taking smear tests though, maybe, maybe not. Certainly the number of people taking smear tests is very low at the moment, particularly in poorer areas of Dublin.

Beyond that, most practices in the areas where cervical cancer is more prevalent don't have the resources to provide the smear test to everyone. They will provide it but it will create yet a further stretch on resources.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:28 pm

johnfás wrote:
cactus flower wrote:
Fianna Fail keep saying they are "rolling out" a screening programme. This is by far the most important measure. Does anyone know what it is and when it is starting?

The screening programme has already started and has been advertised on the television over the past few weeks. Screening is at your GP and is free. I think they recommend those under 40 to have it every 3 years but I'm not sure whether or not you can get it free more regularly if your doctor advises, I think that is the case but I will ask when I get home later.

Will it result in a huge uptake in people taking smear tests though, maybe, maybe not. Certainly the number of people taking smear tests is very low at the moment, particularly in poorer areas of Dublin.

Beyond that, most practices in the areas where cervical cancer is more prevalent don't have the resources to provide the smear test to everyone. They will provide it but it will create yet a further stretch on resources.

Every three years is not often enough. There is a degree of normal inaccuracy in the test. Australia recommends 6 months, the UK annual. You could be very ill in three years (which could be 6 if a test was innaccurate).

More reading for the boys:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2157-circumcision-cuts-cervical-cancer-rates.html
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:44 pm

cactus flower wrote:
More reading for the boys:
www.newscientist.com/article/dn2157-circumcision-cuts-cervical-cancer-rates.html
Do you really want boys and men deciding to undergo circumcision because of a few scientific studies that suggest that women might then be at lower risk of cancer or disease? And isn't it really because of religion, because of a few words written in the Bible or Koran? And why does anyone give weight to those words?

Do you really want to persuade parents to chop off a healthy part of their little son's body? (I thought we had moved on...)
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:54 pm

I enthusaistically endorse soubresauts scepticism on the matter of circumcision. I do wonder why the campaigns against the barbarous practice of FGM don't just campaign against GM and be done with it.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:36 pm

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:
The vaccine is paid for by four local businessmen and will be administered free of charge by local GPs.

Cancer society welcomes vaccine scheme

Irish Times wrote:
The 300 girls in north Dublin being offered the HPV vaccine free of
charge by Fine Gael health spokesman Dr James Reilly and other GPs are
all 12 years old. They are in sixth class in schools in Balbriggan,
Skerries, Rush, Lusk, Loughshinny, Corduff, Hedgestown and Balscadden.

The vaccines, which will be administered
next Saturday, were bought by a consortium of four local businessman
and will be given free of charge by GPs.

However, Charter Medical will also be doing it on a non-profit basis for the price of €300. There are 3 injections in the course.
They are only offering the cervarix vaccine as are the Wellwoman centres for €240. The much more expensive Gardasil seems to offer protection against more variations of the HPV virus and also against genital warts which apparently is rife but doesn't get much media attention. Gardasil costs over €600 though. However since it is 3 injections the payment is in three tranches also. http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE49M96G20081023?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:26 pm

soubresauts wrote:
cactus flower wrote:
More reading for the boys:
www.newscientist.com/article/dn2157-circumcision-cuts-cervical-cancer-rates.html
Do you really want boys and men deciding to undergo circumcision because of a few scientific studies that suggest that women might then be at lower risk of cancer or disease? And isn't it really because of religion, because of a few words written in the Bible or Koran? And why does anyone give weight to those words?

Do you really want to persuade parents to chop off a healthy part of their little son's body? (I thought we had moved on...)

For anyone with a real objection, there is always carbolic and faithfulness Smile
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:17 pm

soubresauts wrote:
Let me see... This vaccine is very expensive, it is not needed by anyone, it is not very effective (be any standards), and it is quite dangerous (even though the "health" authorities say it is quite safe).

I wonder what Reilly is up to. I also wonder: Why do most people who dislike paying tax want this vaccine injected into every young girl at taxpayers' expense?

One thing I'm sure of: Reilly and the "health" authorities want parents to accept unquestioningly the assertion that the vaccine is "safe".

I don't buy it, and I don't want it, and I don't want it funded by public money.

Whether you want it bought by public money or not is irrelevant. The medical advice from people far superior to yourself in terms of medical knowledge recommend that it should be so it will be. If you don't like that, tough.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:25 pm

I had a smear test recently which cost me nothing with my GP and the results came within a few weeks. I'm not due again for another three years but it never cost more than the usual consultancy fee when I had it done in the past.

I have a notion that the announcement of the vaccine is more of the same 'free medical cards for the over-70s' poor thinking. It wasn't properly researched - the confusion over the cost is a clear example...

If I had a 12 year old daughter I wouldn't be allowing her to have the vaccine, partly because the temptation not to bother with regular smears would be too great. I'd rather my kids grow up to be self aware and responsible than rely on a vaccine which has some questions over it and which isn't guaranteed to be universally successful. There's a complacency associated with a blanket vaccine like this which I don't trust.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:00 am

Papal_knight Two wrote:
Whether you want it bought by public money or not is irrelevant. The medical advice from people far superior to yourself in terms of medical knowledge recommend that it should be so it will be.
Would you care to name those superior people?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:41 am

Kate P wrote:
I had a smear test recently which cost me nothing with my GP and the results came within a few weeks. I'm not due again for another three years but it never cost more than the usual consultancy fee when I had it done in the past.

I have a notion that the announcement of the vaccine is more of the same 'free medical cards for the over-70s' poor thinking. It wasn't properly researched - the confusion over the cost is a clear example...

If I had a 12 year old daughter I wouldn't be allowing her to have the vaccine, partly because the temptation not to bother with regular smears would be too great. I'd rather my kids grow up to be self aware and responsible than rely on a vaccine which has some questions over it and which isn't guaranteed to be universally successful. There's a complacency associated with a blanket vaccine like this which I don't trust.
Kate - I think it is perfectly possible to educate women to have regular smears and be vaccinated. I have researched this vaccine and the only reason not to have it done that I can see is that we don't know for sure the protection is long term. It likely is and even if it turns out that is not the case I won't regret spending €600 in attempt to protect my child. My cousin who died of cervical cancer had regular smears and that was how she discovered she had the disease. She was treated, recovered and was struck down again and sadly  that time she died. If  I can do anything to prevent my child being exposed to the virus which causes 70% of this cancer I will. Frankly I think failure to do so would be complacent - not the other way around. I think I'm correct in saying that as cancers go it is the second greatest killer of women.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:54 pm

It is possible to educate women to have regular smears, but that has been singularly unsuccessful so far.

The point I'm making is that because there's no indication how long-term the effects are, the likelihood is that women will become even more complacent. I'd be happier to leave a daughter until she's 16 and knows more about how her body works and what it means. Spending the money isn't the issue at all and my perspective isn't meant to be prescriptive - if others wish to have their children vaccinated at 12, fine. I'm sorry that your cousin died, despite doing everything she could and I see your point of view, but I don't share it.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:19 pm

Kate P wrote:
It is possible to educate women to have regular smears, but that has been singularly unsuccessful so far.

The point I'm making is that because there's no indication how long-term the effects are, the likelihood is that women will become even more complacent. I'd be happier to leave a daughter until she's 16 and knows more about how her body works and what it means. Spending the money isn't the issue at all and my perspective isn't meant to be prescriptive - if others wish to have their children vaccinated at 12, fine. I'm sorry that your cousin died, despite doing everything she could and I see your point of view, but I don't share it.
At 13 my daughter knows all about her body and indeed has done since she was 10. All three of my children have everything explained to them at that stage as that age prepares them for the changes encountered during puberty. When I was a teen my peers started to have sex at different ages which ranged from 15 to 20. These days I understand even younger is common. I certainly do everything possible to ensure my daughter will wait until she achieves a measure of maturity before engaging in sex but I know that parents are always the last to know what their children get up to. I'm not willing to play russian roulette with her future health by not vacinating her prior to the age I would prefer her to be before becoming sexually active.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Sat Mar 07, 2009 6:20 pm

Quote :
At 13 my daughter knows all about her body and indeed has done since she was 10. All three of my children have everything explained to them at that stage as that age prepares them for the changes encountered during puberty. When I was a teen my peers started to have sex at different ages which ranged from 15 to 20. These days I understand even younger is common. I certainly do everything possible to ensure my daughter will wait until she achieves a measure of maturity before engaging in sex but I know that parents are always the last to know what their children get up to. I'm not willing to play russian roulette with her future health by not vacinating her prior to the age I would prefer her to be before becoming sexually active.

I congratulate you on having a daughter who knows how her body works at thirteen - my experience of teenagers is that most don't at that age. In fact, I'd be surprised if the vast, vast majority of them even know what their cervix is.

A parent who does not have their child vaccinated against cervical cancer is not 'playing russian roulette' with their future health. Parents cannot protect their children from every disease and illness and many can't afford lesser interventions on their children's behalf though they would like to. Generations of women have survived without a vaccination and I think it's a bit emotive to suggest that doing without something that has never been available before is somehow gambling. It's not. It's making a choice.

Of course there's the argument that the impending death of Jade Goody might do more for this generation of young people to decrease the risk of death from cervical cancer than any vaccination.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:00 am

imokyrok wrote:
Kate P wrote:
It is possible to educate women to have regular smears, but that has been singularly unsuccessful so far.

The point I'm making is that because there's no indication how long-term the effects are, the likelihood is that women will become even more complacent. I'd be happier to leave a daughter until she's 16 and knows more about how her body works and what it means. Spending the money isn't the issue at all and my perspective isn't meant to be prescriptive - if others wish to have their children vaccinated at 12, fine. I'm sorry that your cousin died, despite doing everything she could and I see your point of view, but I don't share it.
At 13 my daughter knows all about her body and indeed has done since she was 10. All three of my children have everything explained to them at that stage as that age prepares them for the changes encountered during puberty. When I was a teen my peers started to have sex at different ages which ranged from 15 to 20. These days I understand even younger is common. I certainly do everything possible to ensure my daughter will wait until she achieves a measure of maturity before engaging in sex but I know that parents are always the last to know what their children get up to. I'm not willing to play russian roulette with her future health by not vacinating her prior to the age I would prefer her to be before becoming sexually active.

Are you honestly so niave as to believe that all children only become sexually active at an age approved at by their parents? What happens if like thousands of parents you discover that your daughter has had a sexual experience long before you knew, and it is now too late to vaccinate her?

The idea that the vaccination encourages promiscuity is ridiculous. It is the sort of paranoid rubbish people looking for a reason to prevent vaccination. The idea of this form of cancer is only got by promiscuity is a myth. It can be got by someone on their first sexual experience, or someone who has only ever had sex with one person, if their partner unknown to them has had other sexual experiences before with others.

A couple of years ago a college friend of mine discovered that he daughter had that cancer. He was puzzled. She was as far as he knew a virgin. She insisted that she had not had sex. It turned out that quite a while before at a sleepover she got drunk staying in a friend's house and drunkenly had had sex with her school friend's older brother. She didn't drink and there was non-alcoholic punch but the boy had laced it with vodka. She got drunk without knowing and he followed her into the backroom, started fondling her, she responded in a drunken state and she was so naive she didn't know (and with the drink could not remember) that one of the things he did to her was fulr sex. Other than a hangover and feeling a bit of soreness in her privates she didn't know fully what what had happened. So when she was diagnosed and told her father she had not had sex she was telling what she thought was the truth. Then she remembered something about that night - about her friend's brother kissing her, fondling her and pulling down her underwear and doing something that she did not understand and which she liked and which hurt her a bit. It turned out that the boy a couple of months later had been arrested and charged with underage sex with another girl in the class he had got drunk.

The tragedy was that she was diagnosed with the cancer too late and died eight months later. She would still be alive today if that vaccination had existed then and she had been given it aged 12.

So your idea that giving your child the vaccination will make her promiscuous is nonsense. You don't know if she will be sexually active before you want her to. You have no idea if she will be raped, as can happen. If she does like thousands of others become sexually active before you know it, if she is raped, if like that girl she is tricked into drinking alcohol and then doing something she doesn't even understand when drunk, it will be too late for her to get the vaccination. Denying her the vaccination will not protect her virginity. But it may cause her death. And you would have to live with the fact that your wrongheaded decision to deny her a vaccination put her in an early grave.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:12 am

Kate P wrote:
It is possible to educate women to have regular smears, but that has been singularly unsuccessful so far.

The point I'm making is that because there's no indication how long-term the effects are, the likelihood is that women will become even more complacent. I'd be happier to leave a daughter until she's 16 and knows more about how her body works and what it means. Spending the money isn't the issue at all and my perspective isn't meant to be prescriptive - if others wish to have their children vaccinated at 12, fine. I'm sorry that your cousin died, despite doing everything she could and I see your point of view, but I don't share it.

Do you have a link to show that Kate P ? I thought it was the case that Ireland which has until now not had a programme of testing has a much higher level of deaths from cervical cancer than in countries that do have a programme.

I am concerned that three year intervals is not frequent enough. There is quite a high proportion of false negatives, and six years is way too long to leave diagnosis.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:34 am

PK2, I'm not sure whom you're addressing since no one has suggested that vaccination encourages promiscuity.

Cactus, I agree with you that every three years isn't enough. Screening isn't available on the medical card as far as I know and it should be. At 55 Euro per doctor visit, it costs just over a euro per week to get the test more regularly. I'd also like to see more men taking responsibility for spreading HPV but as usual, all the responsibility falls on women.

That doesn't take from the fact that each individual is responsible for their health. We're not good at that in Ireland and on a separate note, expect to smoke like troopers and have the state pay for cancer care, virtually shoot up cholesterol and have the state pay for cardiac care and eat to obesity and have the state pay for diabetes care and other weight related illness. In general, we'd have a better nation and better healthcare if individuals took responsibility for their health.

But back to the issue of cervical cancer, I feel that vaccination at a young age may lead to complacency, especially considering the other risk factors mentioned below and the poor research into Gardasil, also referenced below. We need to do a far better job educating our children about sexual health and what we don't need is young women thinking they're invincible when they're not.

This list of the risk factors from the VHI website. Promiscuity doesn't automatically lead to cervical cancer and abstaining from sex doesn't prevent it.

Quote :


What are the risk factors?
The exact cause of cervical cancer is not known.
However, during the late 19th century, clinicians observed the low incidence of cervical cancer among nuns and began to suspect that cervical cancer may have a sexual cause. In the last few years the development of cervical cancer has been firmly linked with certain types of the human papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted virus that produces benign growths on the skin including genital warts.
It is important to realise that not all cervical cancers are associated with HPV infection and not all HPV infections result in cervical cancer. In fact, persistent infection with HPV seems to be necessary for the development of cervical cancer and usually occurs decades after the initial HPV infection. It is not known why HPV infection persists in some women but not in others. Nor is it known what determines who goes on to develop cervical cancer. A number of additional risk factors have been identified.
Risk factors for the development of cervical cancer

Having your first experience of sexual intercourse at a young age.
Having many sexual partners.
Having sex with someone who has had many sexual partners.
Having had a previous infection with other sexually transmitted diseases.
Having had many children, especially when young.
Smoking (women who smoke are twice as likely to develop cervical cancer than those who don't).
Long-term use of the oral contraceptive pill (greater than 12 years).
Deficient diets in developing nations may be a contributory factor.
Hormonal and reproductive factors may have an independent effect on the development of cervical cancer in women with HPV infection. However, there is no evidence that HRT causes cervical cancer.
Risk factors such as smoking, poor diet and the presence of other sexually transmitted infections may only have an indirect effect e.g. weaken the ability of the immune system to fight off infection.
Many women with some or all of the above risk factors never develop cervical cancer. Also, cervical cancer may occur in the absence of these risk factors.



cactus, deaths in Ireland are higher because we do not have a programme but in countries which do, many women still don't turn up for screening.

Quote :
figures indicate many younger women are not availing of the free cervical cancer screening service on offer.
Prof Julietta Patnick, director of NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, says trends over the past decade have shown a decline in the number of women between 25-35 years of age accepting their screening invitations.
from an Irish Times article here.

Only 75% of women who are called for breastcheck actually attend. I think it's fair to assume that even with widespread education and advertisement, regular news coverage and the occasional crisis or headline story, there are large numbers of women who remain uneducated - in the sense of not having or using the knowledge available - to make the right decisions.
The quote below comes from an interesting, no frills article on Gardasil here.

Quote :
It is essential to remember that Gardasil will not block all HPV infection types that can cause cervical cancer; therefore the vaccine should not be considered a substitute for cervical screening. Administration. A course of three injections, 0, 2 months and six months later- Licensed for girls and women 9-26 years. Politics and Hurdles. There is a limited understanding by many people that H.P.V. causes cervical cancer. The difficulty of getting pre-teens and teenagers in to see the General Practitioner can be a feat in itself, let alone present themselves three times for injections. Expense. Longevity of the vaccine is unknown. The research studies were of short duration. It is unknown whether the vaccines will last just a few years or for longer. Further studies are required. Both men and women are carriers of H.P.V. To eradicate these H.P.V. strains, 6,11,16,18 men will eventually need to be vaccinated. (Science Daily) Homosexual men in Britain are being vaccinated with the Gardasil injection at Harley Street and other clinics in London. Many of this group are swabbed before vaccination to determine which if any, sub-types of HPV they may be carrying. "If they have got a full house of HPV sub-types then there is no point in immunisation" Dr Cummins, Harley Street. Britain's leading HIV and AIDS charity, The Terrence Higgins Trust, say that "the case for mass vaccination in men would depend on the outcome of future clinical trials." Key points to remember: Gardasil does not substitute for cervical screening.....so continue to encourage smear tests as required. Gardasil may not fully protect everyone who gets the vaccine. It does not protect against diseases due to non vaccine H.P.V. types. There are more than 100 H.P.V. types. Gardasil will not protect you against H.P.V. types to which one may have already been exposed. Gardasil works best before any contact with certain types of H.P.V. hence the early age of administration. So the question is........ Based on the information available.... "Would you pay the price .........of the vaccine or risk the disease? Not everyone is jumping on the Gardasil bandwagon without hesitation. How about you?

Interestingly the lack of a screening programme means the reported incidence of cervical cancer in Ireland is second lowest in Europe. The screening will regularise the stats.

The rise in tests since Jade Goody's story broke, the need for a screening programme in the first place and several reports like the one mentioned here and the conference alluded to here show that Ireland has a higher death rate from cervical cancer because of the lack of nationwide screening. None of them mention the lack of vaccination being a cause of deaths, which is the first point to note.

The second however, is that even with the vaccine, screening will still be needed and screening does not enjoy universal uptake, perhaps, as the Irish Times article above suggests, young women think they are invincible. Screening uptake is poor enough as it is in countries where it exists.

My point at all times has been that vaccination is not a cure-all, prevent-all and if I had a daughter, I wouldn't be allowing her to have the vaccine until I was confident that she's aware enough of her sexual and personal health to be able to carry the responsiblity of the vaccine and at the same time be willing to have annual or bi-annual smears. That's not a prescription, it's simply my perspective.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:26 pm

Kate P wrote:

My point at all times has been that vaccination is not a cure-all, prevent-all and if I had a daughter, I wouldn't be allowing her to have the vaccine until I was confident that she's aware enough of her sexual and personal health to be able to carry the responsiblity of the vaccine and at the same time be willing to have annual or bi-annual smears. That's not a prescription, it's simply my perspective.
Your perspective is totally devoid of logic Kate. You seem to accept that the vaccine is worth having since you say you wouldn't have her vaccinated until she's aware of her sexual and personal health and be willing to have annual smears. You speak as though you are entitled to play God with another persons health - that you get to decide based on your decision regarding their future behaviour whether you will permit them to have a vaccine which could save their life. I'm sure you don't mean to sound as though you have a god complex, perhaps you haven't thought through your position. 
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??   

Back to top Go down
 
Dr. James Reilly - funding the cervical vaccine himself ??
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next
 Similar topics
-
» James Webb Space Telescope Progress
» St. James Infirmary
» has anyone used Dr James CHau?
» Our grandfather - William James Long
» Dr James Ritchie - Sydney

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Machine Nation  :: Politics and Current News :: National Politics-
Jump to: