It is vital that young women understand what and why they are injecting Gardasil into their bodies. As mentioned previously, young women are being taught what they are injecting into their bodies (vaccine preventing HPV), but are not given a full understanding as to why (Why are they preventing HPV? What exactly is HPV?) Our goal is to inform sex educators the importance of teaching the facts of HPV towards young men and women. It is vital that an enriched sex education program exist in order to focus not only on HPV, but on ALL sexually transmitted infections. There is a high incidence rate of STI contraction during adolescence, and sex educators need to inform both male and female students about their consequences. HPV is not the most lethal STI, and other diseases such as HIV need to be emphasized immensely. Moreover, similar to family doctors, we recommend that sex educators stress the importance of yearly pap tests and its connection to HPV and other STIs. It is common among adolescent girls to switch to a female doctor in order to increase their comfort levels during this time period. Sex educators should provide information as to where to receive a pap test and provide several contacts (including female family doctors), if they have trouble searching for a family doctor.
Presently, our society is more open-minded towards sexual practices compared to several decades ago. We cannot ignore the fact that young adolescents engage in pre-marital sex. We want sex educators to refrain from abstinence education, and enforce the use of condoms for practicing safer sex. Condoms should be available at all times within the school. Finally, we want sex educators to be honest with adolescents. We do not want sex educators to say, “sex is bad, because you can contract and transmit STI’s and/or get pregnant.” Sex educators should address why the media portrays sex as positive, and admit the pleasures associated to sex. An enriched sex education program such as this, will give adolescents the true facts regarding safe sex, benefits of sex, consequences of sex (HPV, other STI’s) and finally methods of prevention, and pap tests. Finally and most importantly, it will give parents and young women the proper education to make an informed decision towards Gardasil.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Goals and Recommendations: Education --> Who Will be Targeted?
A major argument reiterated throughout this blog stresses the lack of education pertaining to HPV as a sexually transmitted infection. We argued that parents and young women are not properly educated about HPV, making it unfair and unjust to implement its vaccine. Decisions concerning Gardasil have been made strictly surrounding the prevention of cervical cancer. Nonetheless, HPV vaccination programs have been designed to educate parents, but not in a proper manner. For example, in Toronto, grade 8 females are given an information package to take home to parents. This “educational package” includes the following:
- A letter outlining the HPV program
- Fact sheet on HPV vaccine
- Consent form
- Pamphlet (translated into 12 languages)
The information package outlined above provides information concerning the vaccine only. But, what if someone has never heard of HPV? The pamphlet may provide important facts; however, it does not guarantee that parents and children will actually read it. Our goal is to further educate parents, young women, and sex educators about all the facts concerning HPV as a disease, in order to guarantee an informed decision.
We want to begin by targeting parents who feel uncomfortable towards Gardasil due to their misconception of HPV. For example, many parents part of the Catholic School Board believe that the implementation of Gardasil will lead to an increase in young women’s promiscuity. Our goal is to eradicate this myth, and provide proper education and facts regarding HPV, because in reality one can still contract the disease even if he or she is not sexually active. Next, we want to target all parents and young women concerning what is HPV, and inform them about alternative approaches to cervical cancer prevention (pap tests). Finally, we want to ensure that family doctors stress to their female patients the importance of yearly pap check ups. We want to educate family doctors and gynaecologists the importance of maintaining prompt contact with their patients regarding pap test results.
- A letter outlining the HPV program
- Fact sheet on HPV vaccine
- Consent form
- Pamphlet (translated into 12 languages)
The information package outlined above provides information concerning the vaccine only. But, what if someone has never heard of HPV? The pamphlet may provide important facts; however, it does not guarantee that parents and children will actually read it. Our goal is to further educate parents, young women, and sex educators about all the facts concerning HPV as a disease, in order to guarantee an informed decision.
We want to begin by targeting parents who feel uncomfortable towards Gardasil due to their misconception of HPV. For example, many parents part of the Catholic School Board believe that the implementation of Gardasil will lead to an increase in young women’s promiscuity. Our goal is to eradicate this myth, and provide proper education and facts regarding HPV, because in reality one can still contract the disease even if he or she is not sexually active. Next, we want to target all parents and young women concerning what is HPV, and inform them about alternative approaches to cervical cancer prevention (pap tests). Finally, we want to ensure that family doctors stress to their female patients the importance of yearly pap check ups. We want to educate family doctors and gynaecologists the importance of maintaining prompt contact with their patients regarding pap test results.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Goal: Pap Tests for all!
Another goal we have for our policy on HPV is that there be free Pap tests available for all women. So many women fail to get tested each year for a number of different reasons. Some do not have a family doctor, some do not have access to a clinic or hospital as they live in rural areas or are marginalized in the community (this may be due to poverty, being an immigrant or refugee, being Aboriginal, etc.). Also, many women simply are not educated on the importance of getting a pap test, or what a pap test actually does.
We will touch upon the educational component in a different blog, but we would like to stress the importance that women need to know what a pap test is, why they should get one, and where and how they can get one. We propose that all women should have the right to getting tested, and they should be able to do so once a year, for free. Women should be able to go to clinics or hospitals, and those who are marginalized or live in isolated areas should have access to testing sights. This may mean once a year running a clinic on native reserves, or in rural areas. Also, women should have the right to getting the results from their tests in a simple and timely manner. We understand that testing does take time, and their is a waiting period for results, we just want to make sure that abnormal pap tests are always reported.
Ensuring that all women receive pap tests would be extremely beneficial in reducing the spread of HPV, as well as cervical cancer. If a woman does test positive for HPV, she can be made aware of the infection, prevent infecting anyone else, and receive treatment. We believe that freedom and power is in knowledge.
We will touch upon the educational component in a different blog, but we would like to stress the importance that women need to know what a pap test is, why they should get one, and where and how they can get one. We propose that all women should have the right to getting tested, and they should be able to do so once a year, for free. Women should be able to go to clinics or hospitals, and those who are marginalized or live in isolated areas should have access to testing sights. This may mean once a year running a clinic on native reserves, or in rural areas. Also, women should have the right to getting the results from their tests in a simple and timely manner. We understand that testing does take time, and their is a waiting period for results, we just want to make sure that abnormal pap tests are always reported.
Ensuring that all women receive pap tests would be extremely beneficial in reducing the spread of HPV, as well as cervical cancer. If a woman does test positive for HPV, she can be made aware of the infection, prevent infecting anyone else, and receive treatment. We believe that freedom and power is in knowledge.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Goal and Recommendation for new policy: Access for all girls
Currently in Canada, girls in grades 7 or 8 are able to recieve the HPV vaccine for free in their school, as long as their school board has chosen to accept the Gardasil vaccine. What happens to those girls who do not have access to the vaccine for free in their school like their peers? Many Catholic school boards for instance, have rejected the policy, and said the vaccine has no place in their schools. Many parents and childen who attend Catholic schools may be ok with this, as it may fit with their morals and values, however this isn't the case for everyone. There are girls who attend these schools who do want the option to get vaccinated for free, so there need to be places for these girls to go. We propose having the vaccine available in clinics or at doctors offices for free, or at least at a reduced cost. If a girl is of the target age, that is the age in which the province has decided to give out the vaccine for free in schools, and cannot get the vaccine at school, she should have the same rights as her peers.
This raises the issue of whether or not the school is the best place for vaccines. We believe that the school is a good place for those who may not have a family doctor, or have access to a clinic or hospital, as the school is a place that is available to everyone. However, we also feel that a girl should have the option to go to her doctors office to receive the vaccine for free, if she chooses not to get vaccinated at school. The doctor, or a nurse, would be able to give the girl more education, and more time to discuss her options. Funding for all of this would have to come out of the funds that each province recieved for the Gardasil program, and it would have to be redistributed, ensuring each girl of the target age would have access to free or reduced cost vaccination.
This raises the issue of whether or not the school is the best place for vaccines. We believe that the school is a good place for those who may not have a family doctor, or have access to a clinic or hospital, as the school is a place that is available to everyone. However, we also feel that a girl should have the option to go to her doctors office to receive the vaccine for free, if she chooses not to get vaccinated at school. The doctor, or a nurse, would be able to give the girl more education, and more time to discuss her options. Funding for all of this would have to come out of the funds that each province recieved for the Gardasil program, and it would have to be redistributed, ensuring each girl of the target age would have access to free or reduced cost vaccination.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Recommendation: Research
If the HPV vaccine is going to continue to be given to young girls, research is needed on its efficacy and outcome expectancies.
The government has clearly not taken into account the fact that Merck Frosst does not even know yet how effective the vaccine is and whether or not another shot will need to be given to young girls 5 years or so after their first round of shots; this is just asking for the government to provide more funding in the future for a vaccine that may not even be 100% effective.
Additionally, the research that has been done on the vaccine itself is insufficient. Instead of Merck Frosst doing it’s own testing, comparisons of different vaccines carried out in “government supported research programs, free from any conflict of interest” needs to occur. In order to effectively make health care decisions, and evidence based policy decisions, research needs to show that the vaccine is in fact, cost effective and overall effective enough to be given to girls 9-26 across the board. The original testing of the vaccine only tested around 1200 girls, this number is clearly too low and testing needs to be expanded to more girls across all ages.
Before implementing a nationwide vaccination program, the long term side effects of Gardasil need to be discovered. Currently, they are “waiting” to see if there are any long term side effects from the HPV vaccine; using young Canadian women as guinea pigs.
Research findings also need to be available to the public in order for young women and their families to make informed, evidence based decisions and be aware of all possible short term and long term side effects.
The government has clearly not taken into account the fact that Merck Frosst does not even know yet how effective the vaccine is and whether or not another shot will need to be given to young girls 5 years or so after their first round of shots; this is just asking for the government to provide more funding in the future for a vaccine that may not even be 100% effective.
Additionally, the research that has been done on the vaccine itself is insufficient. Instead of Merck Frosst doing it’s own testing, comparisons of different vaccines carried out in “government supported research programs, free from any conflict of interest” needs to occur. In order to effectively make health care decisions, and evidence based policy decisions, research needs to show that the vaccine is in fact, cost effective and overall effective enough to be given to girls 9-26 across the board. The original testing of the vaccine only tested around 1200 girls, this number is clearly too low and testing needs to be expanded to more girls across all ages.
Before implementing a nationwide vaccination program, the long term side effects of Gardasil need to be discovered. Currently, they are “waiting” to see if there are any long term side effects from the HPV vaccine; using young Canadian women as guinea pigs.
Research findings also need to be available to the public in order for young women and their families to make informed, evidence based decisions and be aware of all possible short term and long term side effects.
Recommendation: Addressing the Media
One area which needs to be addressed when thinking of a new policy for HPV (or sex education) in Canada is addressing the media.
The current “HPV information campaign” that has been introduced by Merck gives the impression that the Gardasil Vaccine presents ALL cervical cancer, and basically makes girls feel invincible. It instills fear in young women and their families, without even stating the true facts of the matter. If Merck were running a truly “educational” campaign, it would include that it is not only HPV that as a young women it is not only HPV that you need to be protected against, but rather, all types of sexually transmitted diseases; it would promote general sexual health. Merck’s Gardasil campaigns are clearly in the inestered for the company itself, rather than the health of young people across the country.
The way that Gardasil has been marketed has made it difficult for reflection between parents and children, health care providers and their clients as well as among the public and policy makers, about what HPV is and about the vaccination (CWHN).
A new policy would address this by instead, using the media to promote greater awareness of disease risk, safe sex, condom use, promote Pap tests, and would give the truth about HPV in relation to cervical cancer (more than is in the small print of Mercks current campaign).
The reality is that young women and men need to be educated on sexual health in general, and one way of doing this is using the media. As we can see from the success of Merck’s Gardasil campaign in promoting their vaccine across the county, the same effect could be had using the media to promost sexual health overall. Where are the ads encouraging young women to get Pap smears? Which can protect/identify more sexual health concerns than cervical cancer alone. Where are the ads promoting condom use? Which can prevent STIs and pregnancy. Instead of instilling fear about one STI alone, all aspects of sexual health need to be addressed in order for young women to be well informed across the board about sexual health issues.
It would be difficult to pull Merck’s commercials off the air, but if the government is willing to put aside $300 million for HPV vaccine, the government should be willing to set aside money to promote all aspects of health for young women.
The current “HPV information campaign” that has been introduced by Merck gives the impression that the Gardasil Vaccine presents ALL cervical cancer, and basically makes girls feel invincible. It instills fear in young women and their families, without even stating the true facts of the matter. If Merck were running a truly “educational” campaign, it would include that it is not only HPV that as a young women it is not only HPV that you need to be protected against, but rather, all types of sexually transmitted diseases; it would promote general sexual health. Merck’s Gardasil campaigns are clearly in the inestered for the company itself, rather than the health of young people across the country.
The way that Gardasil has been marketed has made it difficult for reflection between parents and children, health care providers and their clients as well as among the public and policy makers, about what HPV is and about the vaccination (CWHN).
A new policy would address this by instead, using the media to promote greater awareness of disease risk, safe sex, condom use, promote Pap tests, and would give the truth about HPV in relation to cervical cancer (more than is in the small print of Mercks current campaign).
The reality is that young women and men need to be educated on sexual health in general, and one way of doing this is using the media. As we can see from the success of Merck’s Gardasil campaign in promoting their vaccine across the county, the same effect could be had using the media to promost sexual health overall. Where are the ads encouraging young women to get Pap smears? Which can protect/identify more sexual health concerns than cervical cancer alone. Where are the ads promoting condom use? Which can prevent STIs and pregnancy. Instead of instilling fear about one STI alone, all aspects of sexual health need to be addressed in order for young women to be well informed across the board about sexual health issues.
It would be difficult to pull Merck’s commercials off the air, but if the government is willing to put aside $300 million for HPV vaccine, the government should be willing to set aside money to promote all aspects of health for young women.
Summing it up...
The HPV Vaccine has indirectly oppressed women by focusing on HPV as being a female only problem (and as we have discussed men can carry the disease as well). The current vaccination program that has been implemented by the government of Canada does not address the wider concerns that sex education should currently be addressing for males and females. In the next few blog we will talking about goals, objectives and recommendations for policy alternatives in Canada.
Monday, November 10, 2008
The HPV vaccination: A Continuation of Modern Oppression towards Women
The HPV vaccination is currently being implemented towards women ONLY. From my understanding, HPV is a sexually transmitted infection (STI) which is typically contracted via sexual intercourse. (Although it is likely to be transmitted within dyads of the same sex). Within heterosexual dyads, both men and women have equal probability of contracting HPV from one another. Similar to pregnancy, both males and females play a vital, and equal role; the egg and sperm needed for conception. It is evident, that men are just as likely as women to contract the HPV virus; yet in reference to the HPV vaccine women are being oppressed and men are being empowered. On the topic of HPV, why are men not being vaccinated, when obviously men partake in transmitting/contracting HPV as well? This is consistent with the cultural assumption that women will take birth control to prevnt pregnancy. Why is the only contraceptive available for men the condom? This in my opinion further empowers males.
There are two ways to view Gardasil and its implementation towards women. You could misconceive it as a miracle that has been developed to “prevent” cervical cancer, or, you could view it from my perspective; indirectly oppressing and targeting women as the “carrier” of HPV. It unintentionally conveys the message that women spread HPV while men do not. Apparently, an HPV vaccine for men is currently being tested and will be brought to the market as soon as it is ready. But, is this really going to happen? Male birth control is STILL in the process of being developed, while women have been utilizing it for half a decade already.
Presently, birth control (the pill) is an extremely popular contraceptive utilized by women. Besides unwanted pregnancies, it encompasses various benefits, such as menstrual cycle regulation, acne reduction as well as a decrease in menstrual pains (ie: backache, cramps etc.). However, birth control encompasses consequences, which in my opinion outweigh the benefits. Contrary to the HPV vaccine, the pill is associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer (primarily during its early stage). Moreover, the pill is associated with a slight increased risk in breast cancer as well. However, the Canadian Cancer Society noticeably states the links between the pill and cancer “so women can make an informed decision about their own health”, which HPV vaccination programs fail to address. As mentioned previously, male birth control is currently in the process of being developed; however, it is extremely “complicated” because men have the ability to fertilize (due to sperm production) 24/7 whereas women ovulate for 48 hours per month, which is much easier to regulate through the menstrual cycle. Although a male version of “the pill” is a very innovative idea, researchers wonder if men will actually utilize it due to its side effects (lack of libido, mood swings, weight gain etc. are associated with male birth control). What I find oppressive about this matter, is that these side effects are associated with the current birth control available for women.
Women are taking action and risking their bodies in order to prevent STI’s and unwanted pregnancies. They are ingesting or injecting hormones, and injecting HPV vaccines. How are men preventing these issues? I guess one could admit that condoms are mainly targeted towards men, even though female condoms do exist. However, as opposed to oppressing men, the condom gives men the power to choose to expose themselves to disease and/or impregnate a woman. The condom has none of the physical side effects associated with the pill and HPV. As far as I can tell in reference to birth control, and HPV the onus is on women to deal with all of the negative repercussions of their participatory role in sexual intercourse.
There are two ways to view Gardasil and its implementation towards women. You could misconceive it as a miracle that has been developed to “prevent” cervical cancer, or, you could view it from my perspective; indirectly oppressing and targeting women as the “carrier” of HPV. It unintentionally conveys the message that women spread HPV while men do not. Apparently, an HPV vaccine for men is currently being tested and will be brought to the market as soon as it is ready. But, is this really going to happen? Male birth control is STILL in the process of being developed, while women have been utilizing it for half a decade already.
Presently, birth control (the pill) is an extremely popular contraceptive utilized by women. Besides unwanted pregnancies, it encompasses various benefits, such as menstrual cycle regulation, acne reduction as well as a decrease in menstrual pains (ie: backache, cramps etc.). However, birth control encompasses consequences, which in my opinion outweigh the benefits. Contrary to the HPV vaccine, the pill is associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer (primarily during its early stage). Moreover, the pill is associated with a slight increased risk in breast cancer as well. However, the Canadian Cancer Society noticeably states the links between the pill and cancer “so women can make an informed decision about their own health”, which HPV vaccination programs fail to address. As mentioned previously, male birth control is currently in the process of being developed; however, it is extremely “complicated” because men have the ability to fertilize (due to sperm production) 24/7 whereas women ovulate for 48 hours per month, which is much easier to regulate through the menstrual cycle. Although a male version of “the pill” is a very innovative idea, researchers wonder if men will actually utilize it due to its side effects (lack of libido, mood swings, weight gain etc. are associated with male birth control). What I find oppressive about this matter, is that these side effects are associated with the current birth control available for women.
Women are taking action and risking their bodies in order to prevent STI’s and unwanted pregnancies. They are ingesting or injecting hormones, and injecting HPV vaccines. How are men preventing these issues? I guess one could admit that condoms are mainly targeted towards men, even though female condoms do exist. However, as opposed to oppressing men, the condom gives men the power to choose to expose themselves to disease and/or impregnate a woman. The condom has none of the physical side effects associated with the pill and HPV. As far as I can tell in reference to birth control, and HPV the onus is on women to deal with all of the negative repercussions of their participatory role in sexual intercourse.
FREEDOM FOR WOMEN.
Throughout my blog I have analyzed what Canada’s current HPV policies means for and to women. As a result I have adopted a liberal feminist’s view, insisting on freedom as a fundamental right for women. However, in examining and often reexamining the surplus of issues associated with women, feminism and HPV I have been forced to redefine my own concept of freedom. Freedom for women has become an extremely convoluted subject within Canada in the year 2008 as women’s personhood is legally recognized, suffrage has been achieved, and freedom of choice has prevailed. With women having been granted these obvious rights, the oppression of women within Canadian society has become much more subtle. Canada’s position on vaccination of HPV has therefore become a microcosm for the implicit oppression which women face today.
Many complexities exist in attempting to truly understand what freedom means within the context of the HPV debate. Is freedom, as the public information campaign for the vaccination contends, ‘opening your eyes’ to cervical cancer and being ‘one less?’ or is freedom having the right to choose between vaccination or preventative measures such as pap testing, condom use, and partner choice? I, as a liberal feminist would argue for the later. True freedom within the twenty first century is found in women having the power of choice. The proponents of this vaccine would argue that this freedom is granted as women or more aptly the parents of young girls can deny their daughter the vaccine. However in evaluating if women are truly free within this choice I must question if all girls who choose preventative measures as their combatant against HPV have equal access to doctors for regular pap tests and condoms. Within Canada’s overwhelmed health care system, granting all women and girls, including marginalized populations access to sexual health tools, would be essential in giving women freedom in choosing whether or not to vaccinate themselves or their daughters.
Education and information surrounding the vaccine is also necessary should women be granted true freedom. Freedom to choose whether or not to vaccinate is NOT found in the current public health campaigns’ bombardment of advertisements on young women, which fail to address the scope of issues (which are discussed in prior posts but include the limited scope of the testing of the vaccine, the actual likelihood of HPV leading to cancer, the failure to vaccine young men, and the personal tools one can use to avoid contracting HPV or having it escalate to cancer. In educating women, that if they value their lives or their daughters’ lives and do not want to cope with the enormity of cervical cancer they should just get vaccinated, and ignoring ALL the other issues associated with the vaccine, women are not given the freedom to make an educated choice. Instead the politics of fear are used to push and pressure young women to assume the physical and often financial repercussions of the HPV vaccine for themselves and for their partner. Now where is the freedom in that?
Many complexities exist in attempting to truly understand what freedom means within the context of the HPV debate. Is freedom, as the public information campaign for the vaccination contends, ‘opening your eyes’ to cervical cancer and being ‘one less?’ or is freedom having the right to choose between vaccination or preventative measures such as pap testing, condom use, and partner choice? I, as a liberal feminist would argue for the later. True freedom within the twenty first century is found in women having the power of choice. The proponents of this vaccine would argue that this freedom is granted as women or more aptly the parents of young girls can deny their daughter the vaccine. However in evaluating if women are truly free within this choice I must question if all girls who choose preventative measures as their combatant against HPV have equal access to doctors for regular pap tests and condoms. Within Canada’s overwhelmed health care system, granting all women and girls, including marginalized populations access to sexual health tools, would be essential in giving women freedom in choosing whether or not to vaccinate themselves or their daughters.
Education and information surrounding the vaccine is also necessary should women be granted true freedom. Freedom to choose whether or not to vaccinate is NOT found in the current public health campaigns’ bombardment of advertisements on young women, which fail to address the scope of issues (which are discussed in prior posts but include the limited scope of the testing of the vaccine, the actual likelihood of HPV leading to cancer, the failure to vaccine young men, and the personal tools one can use to avoid contracting HPV or having it escalate to cancer. In educating women, that if they value their lives or their daughters’ lives and do not want to cope with the enormity of cervical cancer they should just get vaccinated, and ignoring ALL the other issues associated with the vaccine, women are not given the freedom to make an educated choice. Instead the politics of fear are used to push and pressure young women to assume the physical and often financial repercussions of the HPV vaccine for themselves and for their partner. Now where is the freedom in that?
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Should there be a price on cancer prevention?
After some exploring I found that there are ways for women to get the HPV vaccine if they cannot afford the high price, and if they happen to not be in grade 8. There are some programs available for a fraction of the cost, while some even offer the vaccine for free, that is, if the woman qualifies. If a woman is uninsured, or her insurance doesn't cover the vaccine, she qualifies to get the vaccine at a reduced cost or for free. Merck, the company that makes Gardasil, even has a vaccine assistance program for women to receive the vaccine for free. However, women have to qualify first. You must be at least 19 yrs of age, be uninsured, reside in the US, and have an annual income of $20 000 or less for inds., $28 000 or less for couples, and $42 400 or less for a family of four. Apparently Merck does take case-by-case considerations for woman who are in special circumstances. There is also a vaccines for children program for youth under the age of 18, who do not have insurance, and qualify for Medicare. I am not sure if progams such as this exist in Canada.
While I believe it's great that girls and young women who want to be vaccinated with Gardasil have the opportunity to do so without paying $360, I think it's unfortunate that there is such a high cost at all. I understand that pharmaceutical companies need to make some money, but it is sad that they make as much as they do. It's hard to comprehend the fact that a woman has to pay $360 to protect herself from cancer. Merck has reportedly made billions off of Gardasil already. And while they claim that most insurance companies do cover the vacccine, many people do not have insurance. Is it right that those to pay b/w $300-$500 to protect themselves? And for those who can't afford it, is it right that these women are denied protection?
While I believe it's great that girls and young women who want to be vaccinated with Gardasil have the opportunity to do so without paying $360, I think it's unfortunate that there is such a high cost at all. I understand that pharmaceutical companies need to make some money, but it is sad that they make as much as they do. It's hard to comprehend the fact that a woman has to pay $360 to protect herself from cancer. Merck has reportedly made billions off of Gardasil already. And while they claim that most insurance companies do cover the vacccine, many people do not have insurance. Is it right that those to pay b/w $300-$500 to protect themselves? And for those who can't afford it, is it right that these women are denied protection?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Safe or Sorry?
“Shannon Nelson, an 18-year-old athlete from outside of Chicago, wonders about the vaccine. She got the HPV shot at the same time as two other vaccines. Within a week, she developed Guillian-Barre Syndrome (GBS), a mysterious autoimmune disorder that causes muscle weakness and paralysis. In Nelson's case, she developed paralysis that lasted for over two months. ‘ I couldn't sit up in bed, I could not lift up my arms,’ she recalls. ‘I appear recovered but I'm not.’”. – CTV.ca
I have a serious concern about the clinical trials of Gardasil. 1200 girls aged 9-15 years of age were enrolled in the clinical trials of Gardasil. Of these girls only ONE HUNDRED were nine years old, with the youngest being followed for a mere 18 months. And yet, the vaccine was deemed "safe", with minimal side effects. These one hundred girls represent the target age group for the HPV Vaccination. Shouldn’t there be clinical trials a little more comprehensive than this? How effective are the results of a clinical trial on 100 girls, when in reality, the vaccine is being given across the country to girls of different biological backgrounds on different medications. Who knows how it will affect nine year old over the other, in order to discover this, testing needs to look at more than 100 girls!
A policy of mass vaccinations has been approved based on this basic, short term trial. Who knows what long term effects may come along with Gardasil in the years to come for girls and women who have received the vaccine. No one will know until they actually happen because the clinical trials did not look at long term effects! Anyone remember Depo Vera (the birth control shot)? It had clinical trials too, and after thousands of girls got sucked into the idea they realized it decreased bone density in women (which is already a concern for many).
It makes me wonder when we are going to find out what effects Gardasil is going to have on girls in the years to come. Low bone density, birth defects, deaths? Who knows, because it hasn’t been tested over long periods of time. It is absurd that based on the weak data available, a policy of mass vaccinations has been developed for girls in Canada. Why are the girls always the guinea pigs? All “new” methods of birth control are developed for females; where are the products being using males as the guinea pigs??
I have a serious concern about the clinical trials of Gardasil. 1200 girls aged 9-15 years of age were enrolled in the clinical trials of Gardasil. Of these girls only ONE HUNDRED were nine years old, with the youngest being followed for a mere 18 months. And yet, the vaccine was deemed "safe", with minimal side effects. These one hundred girls represent the target age group for the HPV Vaccination. Shouldn’t there be clinical trials a little more comprehensive than this? How effective are the results of a clinical trial on 100 girls, when in reality, the vaccine is being given across the country to girls of different biological backgrounds on different medications. Who knows how it will affect nine year old over the other, in order to discover this, testing needs to look at more than 100 girls!
A policy of mass vaccinations has been approved based on this basic, short term trial. Who knows what long term effects may come along with Gardasil in the years to come for girls and women who have received the vaccine. No one will know until they actually happen because the clinical trials did not look at long term effects! Anyone remember Depo Vera (the birth control shot)? It had clinical trials too, and after thousands of girls got sucked into the idea they realized it decreased bone density in women (which is already a concern for many).
It makes me wonder when we are going to find out what effects Gardasil is going to have on girls in the years to come. Low bone density, birth defects, deaths? Who knows, because it hasn’t been tested over long periods of time. It is absurd that based on the weak data available, a policy of mass vaccinations has been developed for girls in Canada. Why are the girls always the guinea pigs? All “new” methods of birth control are developed for females; where are the products being using males as the guinea pigs??
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Contradiction Between Education and the Media: How Does This Implicate HPV?
Presently, there is a major contradiction between what is being taught in schools versus what is being portrayed in the media. Sex education within schools highlights the fears associated with unprotected sex. Such fears include STI’s (e.g HPV) as well as unwanted pregnancies. Typically, sex educators promote the use of contraceptives, benefits of sexual abstinence, and as of 2006, Gardasil, the HPV vaccination. However, the media portrays sex as positive and pleasurable, which gives young adults an opposing message concerning sex. It has a powerful influence among children and teenagers, because the average child/teen spends about 5.5 hours per day watching television, surfing the net etc. The media contains a vast amount of sexual content. A study conducted in 2001/2002 discovered the findings mentioned below:
Nearly 75% of all primetime television shows contain some sexual content.
For the top 20 teen shows, this figure increases to 83%
One of every seven shows includes a portrayal of sexual intercourse or
implied intercourse
Overall, only 15% of shows with sexual content mention any of the risks or responsibilities that are involved in having sex. When the shows involve
teen characters, this figure increases to one third. Forty-five percent of the
top 20 teen shows mention risks and responsibilities
An example which I believe most individuals are accustomed to by the media is the lack of demonstrating contraceptive use. When was the last time you witnessed a guy in a movie or tv show stop and say “wait a sec, I have to put on a condom”. The only movie I recall the man putting on a condom was in “Love and Basketball”. The media clearly poses a problem, for its young viewers. For this reason, sex education is an EXTREMELY significant way to address sexual issues concerning young adults. But, instead of addressing ONLY sexual fears, admitting the truths of the media can benefit young adults. It removes the confusion produced by the present contradiction between the media vs. education. Also, it raises awareness for young adults about the implications associated with unprotected sex as well as the pleasures associated with it, when taking extra precaution.
As mentioned previous blogs ago, women have the right to understand and know the facts about their body. Since the media usually portrays a woman as experiencing pleasure from sexual intercourse, the sex educator, in my opinion, should admit that women derive pleasure from vaginal stimulation, and yes, IT FEELS GOOD.
So, what does this have to do with the HPV vaccine??
Well, I have a problem with the media vs. education concerning the HPV vaccine. HPV is portrayed in the classroom as “deadly”, when in fact we all know this is false. From the research previously mentioned in the blog about cancer, cervical cancer does not have a very high incidence rate. And, in fact, since Gardasil only protects against FOUR HPV strands, it does not prevent ALL types of cervical cancers. Moreover, commercials within Ontario are telling women to “open their eyes” and rush to their nearest doctor if they are between the ages of 9-26 in order to receive the HPV vaccine. But, the biggest problem I have with this commercial is WHY? Where is the explanation? Is it left for classroom discussion? Is the media portraying, that sex is pleasurable, and that you should have sex WITHOUT a condom (because they never demonstrate that)? Also, is it implying that Gardasil, will in fact protect you against HPV and cervical cancer ?
I have “opened my eyes” and sex educators need to address the media’s effect on young people’s perceptions towards sex, including the good (pleasures), the bad (HPV) and the truth (What will Gardasil really do for you?)
Nearly 75% of all primetime television shows contain some sexual content.
For the top 20 teen shows, this figure increases to 83%
One of every seven shows includes a portrayal of sexual intercourse or
implied intercourse
Overall, only 15% of shows with sexual content mention any of the risks or responsibilities that are involved in having sex. When the shows involve
teen characters, this figure increases to one third. Forty-five percent of the
top 20 teen shows mention risks and responsibilities
An example which I believe most individuals are accustomed to by the media is the lack of demonstrating contraceptive use. When was the last time you witnessed a guy in a movie or tv show stop and say “wait a sec, I have to put on a condom”. The only movie I recall the man putting on a condom was in “Love and Basketball”. The media clearly poses a problem, for its young viewers. For this reason, sex education is an EXTREMELY significant way to address sexual issues concerning young adults. But, instead of addressing ONLY sexual fears, admitting the truths of the media can benefit young adults. It removes the confusion produced by the present contradiction between the media vs. education. Also, it raises awareness for young adults about the implications associated with unprotected sex as well as the pleasures associated with it, when taking extra precaution.
As mentioned previous blogs ago, women have the right to understand and know the facts about their body. Since the media usually portrays a woman as experiencing pleasure from sexual intercourse, the sex educator, in my opinion, should admit that women derive pleasure from vaginal stimulation, and yes, IT FEELS GOOD.
So, what does this have to do with the HPV vaccine??
Well, I have a problem with the media vs. education concerning the HPV vaccine. HPV is portrayed in the classroom as “deadly”, when in fact we all know this is false. From the research previously mentioned in the blog about cancer, cervical cancer does not have a very high incidence rate. And, in fact, since Gardasil only protects against FOUR HPV strands, it does not prevent ALL types of cervical cancers. Moreover, commercials within Ontario are telling women to “open their eyes” and rush to their nearest doctor if they are between the ages of 9-26 in order to receive the HPV vaccine. But, the biggest problem I have with this commercial is WHY? Where is the explanation? Is it left for classroom discussion? Is the media portraying, that sex is pleasurable, and that you should have sex WITHOUT a condom (because they never demonstrate that)? Also, is it implying that Gardasil, will in fact protect you against HPV and cervical cancer ?
I have “opened my eyes” and sex educators need to address the media’s effect on young people’s perceptions towards sex, including the good (pleasures), the bad (HPV) and the truth (What will Gardasil really do for you?)
Are schools really the best place for Gardisil?
The Canadian government, and in turn several provincial governement, have created a policy which distributes the HPV vaccine to girls in school for free. This allows many girls who could otherwise not afford this vaccine, a chance to protect themselves. However, it is up to the school board to decide whether or not they will provide this service in their schools, not the students. If a girl is interested in getting the vaccine, and her school offers it, she simply has to get a permission slip signed by her parents. What happens though, when a girl wants the vaccine, but goes to a school that does not agree with the policy, and has rejected the Gardisil vaccine? The Catholic School Board in Halton, ON, voted against providing the HPV vaccine to grade 8 girls in their schools (www.globeandmail.com). Halton trustees also voted to have the board increase its efforts to impress students that abstinence before marriage was an important feature of the Catholic faith (www.globecampus.ca).
Six out of twenty school boards in Alberta have also rejected the vaccine. These school boards believe that providing a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease goes against the values and morals that the Catholic faith preaches to the students. Alberta Health spokeswoman Shannon Haggerty issued a statement telling parents not to worry, and that if their children attends a school which has opted not to provide the vaccine, they will not be forgotten. The provincial government is working to make sure their are alternatives for those girls, ie. a place where they can get the vaccine for free like other students their age, such as free clinics (http://ca.news.yahoo.com).
Is the school really the best place to distribute the Gardisil vaccine, or would free clinics be a better choice? One the one hand, the majority of girls attend school (with the exception of home-schooled children), therefore it would be a convenient location for them to get vaccinated. On the other hand, schools are not clinics, and different school boards teach different values and morals. If a girl from a Catholic school that has rejected Gardisil wants to get vaccinated, she may face a moral dilema, as well as stigma from her peers. If all girls had the choice to get the vaccine from a free clinic, perhaps this wouldn't be such an issue...
References
www.globeandmail.com (2008). Catholic school board rejects HPV vaccine.
www.globecampus.ca (2008). Catholic school board rejects HPV vaccine.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081013/national/alta_hpv_backlash_1 (2008). Alberta tries to deal with Catholic backlash against HPV vaccine in schools.
Six out of twenty school boards in Alberta have also rejected the vaccine. These school boards believe that providing a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease goes against the values and morals that the Catholic faith preaches to the students. Alberta Health spokeswoman Shannon Haggerty issued a statement telling parents not to worry, and that if their children attends a school which has opted not to provide the vaccine, they will not be forgotten. The provincial government is working to make sure their are alternatives for those girls, ie. a place where they can get the vaccine for free like other students their age, such as free clinics (http://ca.news.yahoo.com).
Is the school really the best place to distribute the Gardisil vaccine, or would free clinics be a better choice? One the one hand, the majority of girls attend school (with the exception of home-schooled children), therefore it would be a convenient location for them to get vaccinated. On the other hand, schools are not clinics, and different school boards teach different values and morals. If a girl from a Catholic school that has rejected Gardisil wants to get vaccinated, she may face a moral dilema, as well as stigma from her peers. If all girls had the choice to get the vaccine from a free clinic, perhaps this wouldn't be such an issue...
References
www.globeandmail.com (2008). Catholic school board rejects HPV vaccine.
www.globecampus.ca (2008). Catholic school board rejects HPV vaccine.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081013/national/alta_hpv_backlash_1 (2008). Alberta tries to deal with Catholic backlash against HPV vaccine in schools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
