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

imokyrok wrote:

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.

I would have thought there's considerably less logic in bringing a 12 year old for a vaccine and assuming that all will be well when it's very clear that that is not necessarily the case.

I think you should read what I've written again. Cervical cancer is not a single-issue illness and jumping on the vaccination band-wagon as you and indeed James Reilly are doing gives the impression that it is the ultimate life-saver. It is not. Sexual and health awareness, regular smears and if and when desirable vaccination. Gambling with the health of young people is peddling this vaccine (as the opposition parties are doing remarkably well) as the ultimate preventative. It's not.

Parents - and I'm not one, make decisions about their children's health all the time. That doesn't mean they have a god-complex. It's simply part of parenting, of making the choices that a parent on his or her experience and knowledge feels are in the best interest of their child.

Kate P wrote:

imokyrok wrote:

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.

I would have thought there's considerably less logic in bringing a 12 year old for a vaccine and assuming that all will be well when it's very clear that that is not necessarily the case.

I think you should read what I've written again. Cervical cancer is not a single-issue illness and jumping on the vaccination band-wagon as you and indeed James Reilly are doing gives the impression that it is the ultimate life-saver. It is not. Sexual and health awareness, regular smears and if and when desirable vaccination. Gambling with the health of young people is peddling this vaccine (as the opposition parties are doing remarkably well) as the ultimate preventative. It's not.

Parents - and I'm not one, make decisions about their children's health all the time. That doesn't mean they have a god-complex. It's simply part of parenting, of making the choices that a parent on his or her experience and knowledge feels are in the best interest of their child.

Nobody has claimed that the vaccine is the be all and end all of cervical health. It has been clear that it a part but potentially a large part of the weapons at our disposal against the disease. You have never argued that the vaccine should not be given merely that you would withold it until you deem the child sensible enough to behave as you deem appropriate in the future. You are failing to take account of the fact that short of locking them in their room until whatever time you consider them sufficiently responsible you have limited control of their behaviour now. So it may well be too late when you do decide to permit the vaccine. (I know this is hypothetical as you don't have children). Now I understand there are many reasons why someone would withold the vaccine entirely but if one accepts it has value then logically it must be given before the child is likely to become sexually active. Waiting until it is clear the child has developed a responsible health regime may well be too late especially as you point out many people never do develop that level of health care and frankly nobody can possibly know how another person is going to behave in the future. In years to come it is likely this vaccine will be administered in early childhood just as rubella is. As far as I'm aware the only reason it's now administered at the age of 12, 13 is cost based.

While I agree with much of what both Kate P and Imokyrok say on this, I'm pretty sure that this innoculation is only effective for a few years, and at the moment no one knows exactly how long.

I'm swaying back and fore on this. I'm sure that the pharma companies are pushing this hard for profit. I'm equally sure that government is cutting it because their priorities are all wrong. I have some concerns that this is relatively untested and that it does not give complete or long term protection, but may make people less regular in getting smear tests.

Jade Goody has probably done more to cut down cervical cancer, at least for the next four or five years, that any amount of pharmaceuticals.

A woman does not have to be promiscuous to get hpv - she just has to have sex with someone who has had other partners. Hpv is very common and doesn't usually result in cancer. If a woman is at risk of hpv infection she is at risk of other things. Condoms, male personal hygiene and regular smear tests are some the basics of preventative health care.

Not all men are feckless. A programme of public education would imo help.