"'This vaccine represents an important medical breakthrough,' said Dr. Anne Schuchat, director of CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. 'As a result, these vaccine recommendations address a major health problem for women and represent a significant advance in women’s health. It has been tested in thousands of women around the world and has been found to be safe and effective in providing protection against the two types of HPV that cause most cervical cancers.'"
As already covered by Pandagon, Charlotte Allen of the Independent Women's Forum apparently missed the vaccine information that lets us know the vaccine is most effective when given before sexual activity begins, because she titles her post on the topic, "It's OK for Little Girls to Have Sex - As Long as They're Vaccinated." Says Ms. Allen, "But there are a few hitches--such as parents who, uh, balk at the idea of telling prepubescent girls that it’s just fine for them to have all the sex they want, ’cuz now they’ll be vaccinated! And isn’t it against the law to have sex with children?"
Somehow I doubt that little girls will be told it's "just fine" to have sex because of a vaccine that protects against just one STI and the resultant cancer. And yes, it's against the law to have sex with children. Does Ms. Allen think that young victims of sexual assault should be unnecessarily vulnerable to a potentially deadly cancer because the law is supposed to prevent their exposure to such things? According to CDC data,
[note: using the 2004 Census data, that would be more than 106,000 children per year - figures below are for all children, not just females]
Total population in 2004 = 285,691,501
% 5-14 years old = 14.3%
% 15-17 years old = 4.3%
Total % who are children = 18.6%
# of children (rounded) = 53,138,619
(53,138,619)/1000 = 53139x2 = 106,278
[also from Census data, in 2000 there were 16,380,951 students enrolled in high school. 9% would be 1,474,286 students reporting forced intercourse at some point.]
Assume (perhaps inaccurately) that 1/2 of those sexually assualted children are girls - that's >50,000 female children sexually assaulted every single year, and about 700,000 reporting having already been forced to have sex by the time they are in high school. With numbers like that, is it really appropriate to refuse protection against cancer to these young women based on what they or the law should have done? The law is supposed to protect me from being crashed into by drunk drivers as well, but I still put on a seatbelt and drive carefully. Likewise, the law is supposed to prevent people from home invasions, yet many people keep a weapon stashed somewhere handy just in case. In an uncertain world, people like protection from possibilities. Let's not deny it to our young women based on a hope and a belief.
Some of Pandagon's commenters, I think, get it just right when they say:
Coverage:
Technorati Tags: cervical cancer; Gardasil; HPV; Merck; vaccine
MeSH Tags: Papillomavirus, Human; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/prevention and control; Vaccines
No comments:
Post a Comment