I personally think it's a great idea to provide the HPV vaccine to schoolgirls before they're sexually active. I have a good friend who has to go for regular cervical screenings (e.g. every 3-6 mos) because she is at risk for cervical cancer thanks to HPV; she's had a couple of major scares and I know it's an issue she'll continue to face her entire life.
That said, I find Texas Gov. Perry's ties to Merck and Women in Government a little too convenient. He seems awfully chummy to some key individuals. But then again, I've never really been sure about this guy or his motives. He is ultra-conservative--anti-abortion and anti-stem cell--and that makes me more than a bit nervous.
Still, I think the vaccine is the right thing to do regardless of Perry, his beliefs or motives. If the vaccine can prevent HPV and, as a result, certain types of cervical cancer without harmful side effects, then I think it's a very, very good thing.
Thoughts?
1 comment:
I think the vaccine is a great idea, but not sure it should be mandatory just yet. I'm less concerned about the supposed "message" it is sending (it's OK to be sexually active - you won't get HPV) than with the newness factor. The vaccine has yet to have any large-scale use, and long term efficacy is up for debate. Because HPV is indeed somewhat avoidable, unlike Polio or Measles, I'd have to say I'm in favor of holding off making it mandatory for the time being.
Post a Comment