 |
|
|
|
| Parents of Teens |
| Public online group |
|
|
| |
|
|
Hi, Everyone.
I figured that since some of us here have teenage daughter (not me) I thought I would share this with you as well as the homeschool group. The HPV vaccine is now law in Texas when a female enters the 6th grade that she is required to get a series of HPV vaccines shots. They are now trying to do this in Kansas as well. I was safetly say that if it isn't a issue in your state now, it will be soon. My question is this, especially if you have daughters, what are you thoughts on this issue? Remember, HPV is something you can get through sexual activity. It's not air borne like measles here. Please, read the entire article. It is long, but is worth reading. Once you hve read it, please reply.
~Cassandra
Vaccine injects controversy
Proposed mandate for girls designed to help protect against cancer
By Jan Biles
The Capital-Journal
Published Sunday, February 11, 2007
A bill in the Kansas House that would require girls entering the sixth grade to be immunized against human papillomavirus is pitting those in favor of the vaccine against those who question its safety or see the legislation as a threat to parental rights.
House Bill 2227 would require sixth-grade girls to receive the HPV vaccine, Gardasil, before they could attend classes. The vaccine offers protection against two strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer and two strains that cause genital warts, all of which are spread through sexual contact.
Rep. Delia Garcia, D-Wichita, one of 36 sponsors of the bill, said the legislation is needed to help protect young women against cervical cancer, the second-most common cancer in the world. Bills mandating the HPV vaccine, manufactured by Merck & Co., have been introduced in 23 states and the District of Columbia.
"This human papillomavirus is a virus that is preventable and vaccinating against it is no different than getting shots for hepatitis B or tetanus, which are now mandated in all schools," Garcia told the committee.
Each year, about 100 women in Kansas are diagnosed with cervical cancer, according to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Of that number, 34 will die.
Although the bill would mandate the HPV vaccine, parents could decline to have their child immunized based on medical or religious reasons.
Judy Smith, state director for Concerned Women for America of Kansas, said the opt-out feature of the bill is inadequate.
"The opt-out clause should be an opt-in accompanied by full disclosure of the risks and benefits to those receiving the vaccine," Smith testified. "This can be done in the privacy of the doctor's office with parents making the decision that is best for their child without the state of Kansas interfering in that medical decision."
She also testified: "We are concerned that the state mandating a vaccine against a disease that is not airborne but primarily sexually transmitted would send a message to our children that we are assuming they will be sexually active."
While more education about HPV is needed, increased awareness doesn't insure that parents will have their daughters vaccinated against the virus, according to Alexandra Stewart, assistant research professor in the School of Public Health and Health Services at George Washington University Medical Center in Washington, D.C.
"The laws have proved to be the most effective mechanism ever devised to vaccinate our children," Stewart said.
Ron Harbaugh, director of communications for Topeka Unified School District 501, said a child without the required immunizations isn't allowed to report to school. After three days, the child is reported as being truant.
"This is state law," Harbaugh said. "Most parents respond quickly so (the child) can return to school."
More study needed?
Some opponents of the bill say the vaccine needs more study to ensure its long-term safety. They also question how long the vaccine will last and its potency.
The Food and Drug Administration licensed the HPV vaccine in July after it was tested in more than 11,000 females ages 9-26 and finding no serious side effects.
Martha Froetschner, communicable disease team leader for the Shawnee County Health Agency, said the HPV vaccine will be available March 1 at its immunization clinics. The cost will be $134 per shot. The vaccine must be taken in a series of three shots, with the second and third immunizations coming 30 days and six months after the initial shot.
"It's one more vaccine in the arsenal to prevent disease," she said.
Froetschner said the health agency screened 12 people in 2006 for HPV. People who suspect they might have the disease also can be screened by private physicians or at emergency rooms, urgent care centers or other health-related facilities or clinics.
Sen. Jim Barnett, R-Emporia and a physician, said he is always careful when prescribing any new medication.
"I'm always conservative about new medications because after practicing medicine for 25 years I've seen a number of FDA-approved products taken off the market," he said.
Howard Rodenberg, director of KDHE's Division of Health, testified KDHE recommends HPV immunizations begin in the 2009 school year to allow time for a competitive product to be placed on the market, which could affect pricing.
GlaxoSmithKline plans to file for FDA approval of its HPV vaccine, Cervarix, this spring and expects approval by the end of the year, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, which provides nonpartisan information on national health issues.
Rodenberg said the delay would help insure that federal funds are available to allow all Kansas children who need the vaccine to receive it without out-of-pocket costs.
Politics and profits?
Citing the recent executive order issued by Texas Gov. Rick Perry requiring sixth-grade girls there to receive the HPV vaccine, Barnett said he is concerned about the influence that pharmaceutical manufacturers have on the passage of legislation.
Perry received $6,000 for his re-election campaign from Merck's political action committee. In addition, Perry's former chief of staff is a lobbyist for Merck.
Garcia said her decision to sponsor the Kansas bill wasn't influenced by the vaccine's maker but concern over women's health.
"I am glad I did not receive any money from Merck for my re-election bid," she said.
Barnett said he wouldn't vote for the bill if it advanced to the Senate. For him, the decision to get the vaccine is one best left to the doctor, parents and child.
"I think it's more important to have the discussion there than in the Kansas Legislature, " he said.
Garcia said she doesn't know if the bill will be advanced, but she will continue to push the issue.
"I'm not going down without a fight," she said. "I will try every avenue to get this passed this year."
Jan Biles can be reached at (785) 295-1292 or jan.biles@cjonline. com
|
| Posted by Cassandra on 02/12/2007 09:26 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Hi Cassandra,
My daughter is now 26 yrs old and married. I'm hopefully going to have granddaughters one day. And my thoughts are that this should be a decision made by the child's parents after being given the pros and cons of the hpv vaccine.
Regina |
| posted by Regina on 02/14/2007 02:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
| I agree, but Kansas is trying to push it through the line. |
| posted by Cassandra on 02/14/2007 05:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
I thought I had replied to this post, but it's such an issue on many of the lists I subscribe to and I replied so many times it's all starting to blur together!
In a nutshell: I had cervical cancer caused by HPV, so I'm excited about the HPV vaccine. It's great.
BUT I don't agree with mandating the vaccination for all young girls before they can enter 6th grade. 1) I don't care who says what, I have kids and have worked with kids, and they will take getting that vaccination as passive approval of them having sex early. 2) This disease is not easily transmitted, and unless the schools are permitting some pretty interesting phys. ed. activities, it's not going to be transmitted in school.
So I'm for the vaccine, yea, good! But I'm against requiring anyone to have it for school or anything else.
|
| posted by Kelly on 02/14/2007 09:31 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Well, here are my issues with it: 1) It's new & the don't know the long term effects of it even if it is FDA approved.
2)There is the cost of it. Currently, in Kansas, it costs $134 per shot & there are 3 in the series. So, it would cost $134 times 3 to get these shots, but say the cost will be lowered if it becomes madatory, but by how much? 3) I don't like the idea it is being forced on people.
I know I have sons, but my sister is going to have a daughter in a few more weeks (Yeah!) & it's going to affect her.
I am glad there is a vaccine fr HVP as well, but I want to be sure that the long term affects are not wore than the vaccine itself. |
| posted by Cassandra on 02/15/2007 08:23 AM
|
|
|
|
|
| We actually just talked to the doc yesterday about this, we were there getting a tetnus, due to the tattoo issue...anyway, he was so good at explaining the HPV shot to my daughter and exactly what it will protect her from. I feel that it should be up to the parents to decide if it is right for thier daughter. I also dont think that it is just giving these girls a green light on sex, to be honest, they dont need one. I remember back in the day, it didnt matter how much my parents preached to me, I did what I wanted, of course, behind thier backs. So, I'm all for the shot, again, parents decision. |
| posted by Shawna on 02/15/2007 08:09 PM
|
|
|
|
|
| I would be okay with it if it was parents decision, but in the case of Texas & possibily Kansas, it won't be. It will be the state's decision. It's either get the shots or not be able to go to school. Then, if they don't go to school, they get in trouble with the law with that as well. It's a lose-lose situation on this as far as I am concerned. |
| posted by Cassandra on 02/15/2007 08:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
| I agree with you on that, forcing it isnt right. Dont get me wrong, I love living in America, but this is one thing that should remain in the parents control. RE:cost...our insurance covers it and our doc said that if an insurance company does not cover it, they will very soon. So, if it's mandatory in some states, I wonder if the girls will be able to go to the local health department to get the shot for free??? |
| posted by Shawna on 02/15/2007 09:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
| To Knowledge, Texas is the only one that has the law in affect. In Kansas, it is only in the bill stage. So, I don't know if they could go the local health department or not. I would like they could though b/c you can for all the other vaccines you need to be in school for. So, why not? |
| posted by Cassandra on 02/15/2007 09:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
If Oklahoma ever passed a bill like that (we'd be one of the last to do so, probably), the shots would be available at the public health department. I could get it free anyway since my children and I use Indian Health Services.
But I'm against "forcing" it, like nearly everyone else that I've heard or read from. I just can't get the ridiculous picture out of my head of making my 11-year-old daughter get an STD vaccine. Sure I want it available if it becomes an issue, but forcing 11-year-old little girls to have a vaccine against STD when most of them still get grossed out by boy cooties is...ridiculous.
Gosh, some of us were still grossed out by boy cooties at 16 when I was growing up! lol |
| posted by Kelly on 02/17/2007 09:41 AM
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
| |  |
| |
|
|
|
