We often hear how a child should get a blood transfusion, even over any objections of the parents. Should this also apply to small girls, getting the vacine, since most churches don't think they can prevent them from becoming sexual active as teens or single adults?
2007-01-11 15:39:57 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
For those against this, if not for JWs, you would not have the choice.
2007-01-13 19:15:00 · update #1
Interesting ethical question, and the consent for blood transfusion issue is a precedent. However, transfusions are usually given in acutely life threatening situations, while vaccines are not.
Unlike with transfusions, however, I've never heard of religious objections to HPV vaccination, although some parents object to any vaccination full stop, often because of (to me) bizarre beliefs about modern medicine.
I'd say if the child is able to understand the risks and benefits of the vaccination then it is up to the child to give or withhold consent, the same as with any other medical procedure.
Nicholas H, while there are over 30 types of sexually transmissible HPV, over 97 per cent of cervical cancers are due to only two of those types, 16 and 18, which are covered by the vaccine. The other two included types, 6 and 11, cause the majority of visible warts (which are not dangerous, but more of a cosmetic problem).
Condom use does help to reduce HPV transmission as well as other STIs, but you are right that it's not 100 per cent.
2007-01-11 15:51:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
I don't know wat the case here in the UK is, but i doubt they do it over parents objections. As for the idea of HPV vaccination itself, its not a bad idea because sadly because of the prevailing culture in some parts of he world, some girls do indulge in sexual activity outside marriage, even those from religious backgrounds - culture is often a stronger influence than religion. And even if they only have sex within marriage, their husbands may have (or may later get after the weddig, from committing adultery) HPV viruses and pass it on to them.
2007-01-17 07:45:13 · answer #2 · answered by Beng T 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, that vaccine is brand new, and I gaurantee in 5 years women will be suing the maker because it causes some worse kind of fate. Just like Plavix, and Vioxx, and dozens of other drugs.
A blood transfusion cannot be compared to a vaccine. Millions of parents, religious or otherwise, let their children get proper shots. I don't hear a big religious ruckus over that.
Blood transfusions can be more complicated, where parents object for an variety of reasons, but the doctors are right for giving the kid the blood anyway.
I'm just saying, there is no religious debate over vaccines, so your comparison is apples and oranges.
.
.
2007-01-11 23:49:13 · answer #3 · answered by cirque de lune 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
What about all the young teen boys who have sex with these teen girls? Are they going to get off scott free? If you make all the young girls get vaccinated for HPV than all the boys should be vaccinated as well.
2007-01-12 00:38:20 · answer #4 · answered by robedzombiesoul 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, but not just to girls--to boys too. If they can't get it, they can't spread it. The hepatitis vaccines should also be required since they prevent a certain kind of liver cancer caused by having hepatitis. Because of recent findings with HPV, more research is being done in regards to viruses causing cancer. Every step we take towards cancer prevention is a step in the right direction.
2007-01-11 23:53:14 · answer #5 · answered by rainchaser77 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
that vaccine is kind of a joke. It prevents 4 types of HPV...there are DOZENS of strains. The worst part about it is that the commercials never even mention how you get HPV (it is a virus that gets into the skin around the genitals and wearing a condom does not prevent the transfer of the virus). but instead the commercials make it sound like this is the be all end all cure for the problem...it isn't. The companies making the drug just want to mislead people about the virus in order to sell more vaccines, it makes me sick. If they really wanted to protect women from HPV the commercials would explain how you contract the virus as well as offer the information that the vaccine only prevents a few of the strains. But since they do not, young girls everywhere are simply going to get the vaccine and think they are immune.....JUST SICK.
-My problem with the commercialism of the vaccine aside, it is a step in the right direction. Should people be FORCED to get it?...NO.
2007-01-11 23:43:34 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 6⤊ 5⤋
We presently vaccine against other diseases. Without any problems. Morally or ethically. Why not this one. The answer is yes.
Regards
DL
2007-01-19 19:28:43 · answer #7 · answered by greatest_i_amm 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I think it should be a required vaccination. It may not prevent ALL strains but it would go a long way to helping prevent some of them. If I had a daughter you bet I would have ehr vaccinated.
2007-01-11 23:48:26 · answer #8 · answered by Stormilutionist Chasealogist 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
they can get a religious exemption-we don't do any vaccines and we are religiously exempt-the catholics down on aborted fetal cells (which are used in some vaxes)http://www.vaccinetruth.com/
This is a fairly new vaccine too-anyone remember vioxx being recalled? That was made by the same makers, I wouldn't trust my childs health with them.
2007-01-12 00:00:22 · answer #9 · answered by me 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
HPV and disease are facts based in reality
"belief" in god, buddah, hawkman or any other asinine delusion is not only retarded, it jeopardizes the health of sexually active people (only freaks are not sexually active)
2007-01-13 14:59:25 · answer #10 · answered by phooey 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋