That last post and comments embody what I love most about the blogosphere: interested debate and an opportunity to learn from others who raise their points in a respectful way.
Well, okay, maybe not the "are you crazy?!" stuff, but all in all, I do nothing but smile and get a bit high off the lovely debate of it all when we have a conversation like that.
So, in an effort to further explain my viewpoint, and perhaps defend my sanity in the process, I offer the following:
1) I am more than a bit scared of the influence of giant companies (pharmaceutical and otherwise) on our government. But another side of me can't help but giggle at the notion that for once, such a horrible system of influence may have actually helped rather than hindered.
2) I am coming at this issue with my own personal history. How can I not? I contracted HPV in high school from my very serious boyfriend. I was not promiscuous. I was, however, a teenager, who was not immune to making poorly-informed, immature decisions. I came of age during the height of the AIDS/HIV scare. I watched film strips of horrible chancres, lesions, oozing private parts and listened to a litany of horrifying facts about how sex would ultimately lead to my demise, if I didn't have to good sense to abstain or at least use a condom. In the end, I believe this was a huge disservice. I had no idea that condoms could not and do not protect you from HPV. Nor did I know that the very innocuous, invisible little lump I felt (coincidentally, and thankfully) one week before going for my annual gynecologist visit was a "WART!!!" The term is beyond misleading.
When my doctor told me what I had and treated me, she was careful to warn me that I had a very high chance of getting cervical cancer in a few years. And lo and behold, two years later, I was diagnosed with severe dysplasia and underwent a LEEP procedure - just the sort of thing you like to do when you're a sophomore in college.
At that time, one in three young women my age had HPV. ONE IN THREE. Many had no idea. MOST found out when they, too, were diagnosed with dysplasia or actual cancer years down the road.
3) Because of my experience, I am very aware of the effect HPV has on the poor and underprivileged. I was fortunate enough to have a mother I could turn to. I had access to a doctor I could trust. And I had the money to pay for treatment, and later, the insurance to pay for surgery. Mine was a best-case scenario.
What if I had been one of my many classmates who had neither the support or money to get any of that? What if I hadn't ever been to a doctor and ended up with advanced cervical cancer that metastasized by the ripe-old age of 22?
The reason my initial response to this state mandate is positive is because it means cost will not be an issue for the poor and undeserved in this state. Girls whose families cannot afford nearly $400 to pay for the vaccine (assuming they only have one daughter) won't have to subject their daughters to prospect of cervical cancer simply because of money.
4) As for the relative safety of this vaccine, I simply cannot say. I am not a doctor or a scientist. And I am more than grateful that I have the blessing of time (at least eight more years) before I will need to make this decision for Hannah. I was/am, however, under the impression that big, substantial changes had been made to our drug approval processes precisely because of disasters like DES. Could I be wrong or naive about this? Absolutely. [Did anyone happen to watch Special Victims Unit last night, because that one scared the pants off of me about the EPA, for instance.]
I, do, however, find it interesting that we (as a public) bemoan the lengthy approval process for drugs that treat cancer or Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, while remaining so negative and dubious of a vaccine to prevent a "sexually transmitted disease" [which, by the way, you can contract through heavy-petting and other non-intercourse activity] which was put through the same process. I can't help but feel that a lot of the push-back has to do with the "dirtiness" of this issue.
I also feel that it's a bit misleading to liken a drug for treatment to a preventative vaccine. It is my understanding that a drug and a vaccine work in two very distinct ways. Not that there aren't potential side-effects. But I gave my daughter the chicken pox vaccine, knowing that the worst-case scenario of not giving it to her was a week of extreme inconvenience. The worst-case scenario of cancer seems much more worthy of serious consideration.
5) None of this is to say the concerns over safety aren't very, very valid. Or that I am not worried about them.
I do think it is important to note that all a parent has to say is "I object to this vaccine" and their daughter won't have to get it. And I believe the state agencies responsible for providing affordable vaccines to the underprivileged with ABSOLUTELY make this known because it still comes back to the underlying notion of cost. What state agency do you know of that actually wants to dole out expensive treatment?
6) Due in part to the atmosphere of my state and the local news coverage of the issue, my gut reaction on this is that the push-back is primarily about the taboo of a sexually transmitted disease. It is the first complaint issued by those who are opposed to the mandate (again, in TV coverage) and the most political aspect of the debate. This makes me crazy. It's not about sex, it's about cancer. If you're uncomfortable with the vaccine because of safety, I get that. But saying that giving this vaccine to girls (boys are never mentioned) gives them permission to go out and screw any boy with impunity is like saying that chicken pox vaccine will give Hannah the urge to go licking a be-poxed friend just because she can.
If the vaccine proves safe and I choose to have Hannah vaccinated when she is ten, there won't be a discussion of it with her any more than when she gets a tetanus booster. Those talks will come when we talk about safe behavior and sex in general. And she will know that HPV is just one of the myriad of concerns that pop up when you're considering sex.
In short, I am so glad to have access to smart, considerate women and men like yourselves because it gives me yet another opportunity to learn more about issues that are very real and necessitate serious thought.
So let's talk more!! Especially if you have links. I love the links.
