Since Darksyde's links were from April, here's where the HPV vaccine controversy currently stands. In sum, the situation with approval of this vaccine is not nearly as dire as indicated in his diary. Where political action comes into play is whether or not this vaccine should be mandatory. One thing that bothers me is that the powers-that-be may decide to vaccinate girls only, despite the fact that boys can both carry and become infected by HPV. A girls-only vaccine is inherently sexist. Please read on!
Here's a story from
the Washington Post that demonstrates that its the
mandatory requirement of the vaccine that is giving conservative groups pause. (Note that approval is a given.)
I found great relief in sentiments from Wendy Wright, executive vice president of conservative Concerned Women of America in this USA Today article: she realized that even abstinent-til-marriage women were at risk of contracting HPV from their husbands, so the vaccine is not a one-way-ticket to promiscuity. And this seems to be the prevailing kind of thinking from conservatives (who, wonder of all wonders, are THINKING!). Thankfully, the fact that the vaccine targets cancer makes it a pretty easy sell.
I don't know quite what to think about mandatory versus voluntary. In a NYT article from Oct. 28 that I found on Lexis-Nexis ("Doctors Support a Childhood Vaccine for a Sex-Related Virus" by Lawrence Altman) but not on nytimes.com, only 11% of parents were opposed to giving this vaccine to their pre-pubescent daughters. With the expected imprimatur of the family doctor, this number should dwindle even further.
Some other interesting facts about HPV
- HPV causes an anal cancer that is a very common killer of HIV-infected gay men; it's resistant to HAART, apparently. Read Cervical cancer prevented in 2-year study to find out more.
- Cervical cancer is rare in the US but the number 2 cause of death of women in developing countries (see end of USA Today article)