As a sexually active woman, I guess I’m supposed to be thrilled that the hpv immunisation is possibly going to be available sometime in the future. HPV is a virus that has lots of faces - warts, cervical cancer, absolutely nothing. For the most part, nothing happens, but you can pass it on to other people. I read somewhere that 70% of sexually active people have it.
The new vaccine, announced with huge fanfare here in Aus for use in schools from 2008,can prevent infection when given to individuals not yet exposed to the virus. The theory then goes that this will mean fewer cases of cervical cancer. Girls in year 8 (first year in high school) will be part of a mass immunisation drive - people could opt out for their children, much like TB testing or the triple antigen immunisation.
Yay, yes? Fewer scary pap smear outcomes, just for one jab. A much lesser chance of getting cancer is a good thing, and it’s easy to achieve - no need for exercise or quitting smoking or eating in a particular way
But I feel conflicted. It is cheaper to fund prevention than treatment, but the PBS board declined to fund the vaccine because it is too expensive to subsidise. But the PM overruled that and so the vaccine is being subsidised. On one hand this means that the vaccine will be available to everyone, rather than just to those that can afford. Cervical cancer kills many more poor and indegenous people than others, and to make it available to those at risk is to be commended. But at what cost?
I also get the feeling that buckets of money are being rolled out just prior to an election for an easy fix, and yet there is no neew money for research into treatment or better smear tests. I feel slightly that this writes off any female older than ~13 in 2008.
There is also the question of whether implementing a wide reaching immunisation program infringes on parental rights and of course the time honoured "who will think of the children" cry of - will this encourage young people to have sex??
I cannot imagine how it possibly could. The fear of AIDS, pregnancy, a bad reputation, your parents or their’s wanting to hunt you down and yell at you, and a hundred other things is not a deterrent. The fear of a symptomless, potentially consequence free std is hardly going to have anyone stop anyone getting nekkid.
My problem also with making the vaccine part of a program like this is that it puts hpv in the same category as tuberculosis, rubella, mumps, chicken pox, small pox and polio. This kind of expenditure should be reserved for diseases that are deadly and communicable by social contact not of the sexual kind. That’s when it’s as important to protect me as it is to protect you. Herd immunity I think it’s called - and at the moment that kind of immunity for whooping cough and a heap of other diseases is failing because people refuse to immunise their children. Well there you go, I’m pro-immunisation it seems. It just makes sense to require immunisation for diseases such as these where, if a certain number of people aren’t immunised, everyone is at risk.
HPV on the other hand - you have to have sex to get it. That means there are going to be people who won’t ever get it (celibate, monogomous), and people who will get it regardless of what immunisations are offered because the virus is passed on through intimate contact of the genitals, not just intercourse, so condoms don’t protect 100%.
How can you say, at 13, who will be in these groups? But on the other hand, by the time sexual activities that put you at risk (which is pretty normal sexual activity as no one, regardless of how committed they are, is perfect) becomes clear, it’s probably too late for immunisation.
Where is the limit here? Should public funds be spent on this instead (and let’s be honest - it is an "instead" because there is limited $$ to go around) of dentistry or midwifery care or pscychological support?
I guess in part I am sick of the Federal Government being inconsistent. Sure, make drink/drug driving illegal to protect the public from stupid people. Stop smoking in workplaces.But when tanning booths are allowed to operate, and advertising encourages tanned looks when we live in the WORST country for sun cancer, and so little money is given to skin cancer research, I can’t help but want to scream. Get hysterically upset about asbestosis but drag your feet about smoking in the hospitality industry.
When the melanoma vaccine comes out, will that be given to babies at birth? Will that give people carte blanch to tan their hides off based on the vaccine? And what happens if children who are immunised then get cervical cancer or genital warts? Will they sue the makers in 30 years time? Can I sue if my immunisation drops for other things? Is the Government liable for getting involved and subsidising it?
