Should parents use vaccine to leverage teen sexual activity?

Question

Drug makers Glaxo Smith Cline and Merck have just released cervical cancer vaccines called Gardasil and Cervarix which (according to research) provides 100% protection to the HPV that causes cervical cancer but it should be administered to girls before their first sexual activity. Advocates are suggesting ages 10-14. Proponents believe the vaccine can mislead girls to think they are safe after the vaccine. Should parents refuse to pay for the expensive vaccine to prevent their daughters from having promiscuous sex? Do you think this will be social debate soon?

Answer 1

It is not to promote promiscuous sex...it's to protect them later for if they hook up with the wrong fella, even through marriage. HPV is very very common and in some girls, it can kill. A social debate? Nah, I don't think so.

Answer 2

In My Opinion people/parents need to be thinking about their daughters reproductive health as early as possible. This vaccine should be treated like ALL others, and I further think it is up to the parents whether or not they EXPLAIN what the vaccine is to their daughters. I have 3 sons (no daughters as of yet) and every vaccine goes the same - they cry when they are told they are getting a shot, they don't ask what the shot is. MOST girls at the age of the vaccine have no clue what half of the vaccines are that they have already had, and MOST don't ask until they need to know for college. By then, if they are going to be free with their sex lives a shot is not going to encourage it because most already have.

It probably will become a social debate soon, just because it deals with female reproductive health and our youth.

Answer 3

Yeah, but no one isn't having sex because they are afraid of HPV, no one. Almost the entire population is infected with it at one time or another in their lives. Usually it clears on it's own, but there are only a few strains of HPV which are linked to cervical cancer, called high risk HPV strains. I don't think that taking the vaccine or not will make them more or less prone to sexual activity. Already everyone knows the dangers and still people have unprotected sex. So, if people have sex knowing the dangers of having it unprotected, but still do it, why would they do it more just because they got a vaccine? If they thought the vaccine protected them from AIDS or pregnancy, they would be pretty stupid. The only risk I think in getting the vaccine is the unknown long and short term dangers of getting the vaccine itself. Vaccines are drugs, if they make a law requiring now that every 10-14 year old girl gets this vaccine, there will be a whole american generation of female guinie pigs, who knows what the adverse effects of THIS vaccine will be???

Answer 4

I think the whole issue is one that should not have to be discussed. It concerns the health of a person. It is just another vaccine. It may treat an STD, but the child doesn't need to know that. I am hoping that it becomes a part of the regular required vaccines. HPV may be an STD, but it does not take promiscuity to get it. Anyone with common sense and wants the best health for those they love will vaccinate. Your daughter may want to have children someday and because she slept with someone (who could even be her husband) doesn't mean she should have to pay for it all her life. (HPV causes Cervical Cancer and can also lead to sterility)

Answer 5

This might come as a shock to some people, but when teenage girls go to have sex, they aren't thinking about HPV. Most don't even know what HPV is, and even more don't really care about the threat of getting cancer 20 years down the road.

The vaccine makes absolutely no difference in the sexual behavior of teenage girls. It's a moot point.

Answer 6

I don't think it should be up to the drug companies to decide whether and when a woman is to get a vaccine... and as far as the child is concerned... it is ultimately up to the mother to provide her daughter with knowledgeable facts and information about sex, pregnancy and intimacy. Some girls may interpret this new vaccine as a safe way to have sex... however, there are not safe ways of doing anything... the best protection is abstinence and the knowledge of right and wrong.. and that is something that the mother/parents will have to do!

Answer 7

I dont think any parent would refuse to get a vaccine and honestly believe that that would prevent teen sex. Teen sex has been going on for ages prior to the development of the vaccine. Alternatively, the type of cancer that this vaccine prevents is also readily treated when detected early through pap smears, so girls who do not get the vaccine are not doomed to die of cervical cancer.

Answer 8

I think that the vaccine should be used until the medical communtiy and others can teach teens the seriousness of this cervial cancer. It is a very serious thing, and it happens from unprotected sex, and too many sex partners, the sperm actually sits on the cervix until it is dissolved within 3 days, if comes in contact with another sperm then there is trouble. the vaccine is not going to stop teens from having sex, it is going to stop them from getting cancer from having promiscuous unprotected sex. Yes i think it will be a social debate soon just like condoms in public school was a social debate. Until America can respect that teens are going to have sex there will always be debate. If God intended for us to have sex in our late teens, early twenties, then we would have our periods at 16,17, or 18 instead of 10,11,or 12.

Answer 9

I don't know---I think it would be a good idea, if it has been proven to actually curb cervical cancer. However, at that age, maybe the parents should just tell the girl it is a required school vaccine and not get into details that would put ideas in the girls' heads.

Answer 10

I don't see why they shouldn't give it to girls- I will get it for my daughter when she is older. People just need to take the time to educate girls that this vaccine only protects them from a single virus- only one. The one that can cause cervical cancer. There are lots more viruses and diseases out there that can do terrible things to them that is DOES NOT protect them from. I'm sure people will see this not as a protective measure as it it meant, but as giving their daughters a reason to have sex- which I think untrue. If a girl is going to have unprotected sex, I don't think having or not having this vaccine is going to matter to her.

Answer 11

This isn't about personal politics, it's about female health and health safety. Young girls that are going to have sex WILL have sex regardless if they are protected from HPV or AIDS or even pregnancy. HPV is out there and many woman die from the virus each year. If a vaccine is available to prevent it, all woman and young woman should have the choice to get regardless of a persons political thoughts on the marketing of the new drug.