Catholic School Board decide not to vaccinate for cervical cancer on moral grounds

[RW99]

My mother died from this horrible disease and she waited till she was married.

What is wrong with some people?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by RW99

My mother died from this horrible disease and she waited till she was married.

What is wrong with some people?

Exactly, just like pregnancy; it only takes one encounter.

Sorry to hear about your mother.

[Wookie]

Brutal! In 10 years I don't want to have to start asking the 18 year old I hit on if they went to public or catholic school!

Won't someone please think of me!!!!

[metal_geek]

It no different then the people who refuse to give thier kids polio or small pox vaccine's because some idiots with no clue at all, spread around that vaccines cause autisim...

People are too wrapped up in thier own self centric BS too look at the facts let alone think about anyone else..

Stop selling me your friggin raw veggie colon cleaning clense. Take some more 1/1000000000000000th hoemopathic tincture, put down the kool aid served by whatever brain washing establishment you subscribe to, at get a grip on reality...

[comrade]

Originally Posted by jonesy

I can't see the problem with this. If you want to vaccinate you daughter, go do it.
I have some daughters and I am really not sure whether to do it or not.
There are sometimes side effects with vaccinations, and unless I'm mistaken, this doesn't get ALL the hpv, so while decreasing chances of HPV, it does not eliminate them.
There is also the chance that anyone with this vaccination will feel immune to STD's and make it easier to give in to the urge to have sex. I don't think this can be understated, it is one less thing to worry about and therefore makes sex that much less dangerous.

Side effects of vaccines are rare, you're argument for that is akin to not wearing a seat belt because a very small minority of the time you're actually better off without one. As for the 'immunity' argument, I concur with other posters in that I don't think resistance to HPV would significantly alter kids positions on sex, as long as they're properly educated on the subject.

A hypothetical question (for everyone): What if the vaccine was for HIV? I believe that vaccine could significantly alter sexual behaviour in those who take it, but would you deny children the vaccine because it might lead to greater promiscuity?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I
Unfortunately some human beings are going to have to pay the price for this willful ignorance.

Thats a little harsh, no?

Not providing something is not the same as stopping people from getting it. In fact they are educating parents and students and telling them where to get the vaccine for free (if I read that right).

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by comrade

A hypothetical question (for everyone): What if the vaccine was for HIV? I believe that vaccine could significantly alter sexual behaviour in those who take it, but would you deny children the vaccine because it might lead to greater promiscuity?

Who's decision is that to make? The schools or the individual parents?

No one is being denied anything (i don't think). The school is simply leaving the decision to individual parents.

Here's another hypothetical.

If the public schoool board had made the same call, would the reaction be the same?

[photon]

Originally Posted by jonesy

I have some daughters and I am really not sure whether to do it or not. There are sometimes side effects with vaccinations,

Why on earth not, any side effects would be temporary while the benefit of this is long term.

and unless I'm mistaken, this doesn't get ALL the hpv, so while decreasing chances of HPV, it does not eliminate them.

I think 70% reduction in cervical cancer risk is what's been found; that's pretty substantial.

There is also the chance that anyone with this vaccination will feel immune to STD's and make it easier to give in to the urge to have sex. I don't think this can be understated, it is one less thing to worry about and therefore makes sex that much less dangerous.

These are given to 10 year old girls... if it gives them a feeling of empowerment to have more sex, you've got much bigger fish to fry.

When I vaccinate my 4 year old son I he doesn't need to know the details of the various things it fights.. and at 10 they don't need much more detail. It's a vaccine to help you not get sick.

[Save Us Sutter]

Originally Posted by comrade

A hypothetical question (for everyone): What if the vaccine was for HIV? I believe that vaccine could significantly alter sexual behaviour in those who take it, but would you deny children the vaccine because it might lead to greater promiscuity?

I can't even imagine not offering an HIV vaccine if there was one. Though I can't really imagine not offering the HPV one either.

Teenagers are having sex all the time!. There is not really such thing as "greater promiscuity" anymore. To not offer a vaccine because you think it might lead to more sex among young people... it's ridiculous because it simply can't happen. I have little cousins in junior high/high school that I am pretty close with and they know more and are doing more than I ever did at that age! And I'm only 27. It's not like a huge generational gap or anything.

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Thats a little harsh, no?

Not providing something is not the same as stopping people from getting it. In fact they are educating parents and students and telling them where to get the vaccine for free (if I read that right).

As has been mentioned the schools are used because it is the easiest way to get as many kids as possible. Many of the parents (and arguably those of the kids who need this the most) simply won't do it for one reason or another.

[FlamesAddiction]

This should be up to the parents and individuals anyway.

A lot of things cause cancer, but schools don't force preventative measures for those. Do other school boards distribute sun-screen to kids to avoid skin cancer? Do they give the kids dust masks if their school bus drives down dirt roads (silica dust being a major carcinogen)?

Honestly, the more the Catholic Church stays out of the private lives of people, the better.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

As has been mentioned the schools are used because it is the easiest way to get as many kids as possible. Many of the parents (and arguably those of the kids who need this the most) simply won't do it for one reason or another.

K, but if the parents are given info, directions, and a free vaccine, and choose to nothing for little Sally, who's responsibility is her future health? The schools, or the parents?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Thats a little harsh, no?

Not providing something is not the same as stopping people from getting it. In fact they are educating parents and students and telling them where to get the vaccine for free (if I read that right).

Maybe harsh, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

And no, not providing something isn't the same as stopping them from getting it, but this ludicrous "stance" is coming from a figure of authority within the church, and there are people out there dumb enough to actually listen to it.

"The Bishop said the vaccine promotes promiscuity, so my daughter isn't getting it". 20 years down the road, someone has cancer. Where's the Bishop now?

And by "willful ignorance" I mean that these people know, even if they won't admit and try to deny it, they know that after all is said and done, people are going to get laid, and they are going to get laid before they get married, and they are going to be at risk of contracting this disease.

But they continue with this charade and pretend they don't know it, and pretend that they don't understand reality, and they make decisions based on something they don't believe, but do it because that's what the book or the Bishop or the guy with the hat says.

[Save Us Sutter]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

This should be up to the parents and individuals anyway.

IIRC, any vaccines I had at school, my Mom had to sign a form first. It is up to the parents, the school just offers a simple way for it to be administered.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

A lot of things cause cancer, but schools don't force preventative measures for those. Do other school boards distribute sun-screen to kids to avoid skin cancer? Do they give the kids dust masks if their school bus drives down dirt roads (silica dust being a major carcinogen)?

Again, not forced. Any parent may choose to not have their child vaccinated by not signing the permission form. Unless things have changed since I was in school. Also, I'm sure if you asked your teacher, they'd give you some sun screen!

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Honestly, the more the Catholic Church stays out of the private lives of people, the better.

Agreed 100%!

[Save Us Sutter]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

K, but if the parents are given info, directions, and a free vaccine, and choose to nothing for little Sally, who's responsibility is her future health? The schools, or the parents?

Hey it's ultimately the parent's responsibility for their child no argument there.

But you've got to remember these Bishops are in a position of authority and they are basically telling the parents "if your daughter gets this shot, she's going to be a skank... and you know what THAT means....."

Some parents are going to listen to that.

Some parents are going to forget to take their kid to the appointment. Some parents won't even make the appointment. Having schools involved avoids that as well.

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

If the public schoool board had made the same call, would the reaction be the same?

I missed this the first time I read, but yeah, I think it would be the same reaction if they made the call for the same reason (that it promotes pre-marital sex). If they had a REAL reason (dangerous side effect or something) then no one would argue. Same as if the Catholic church had a rational reason for not allowing it. No one would complain.

[LChoy]

My collegues upstairs would be a little bummed about this news. I can understand keeping out the Church and School out of people private lives, but it's not a private issue. This is a public/population health measure. The vaccine just doesn't only prevent women from HPV/warts, but prevents her from also infecting other people (mainly the male population which isn't publically covered right now). The overall goal is to reduce the overall prevelance of HPV in our population and hope that it would reduce the cases of cancer in woman down the road.

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

These people know it -- they know with absolute certainty -- that 99% of the kids that come to their school everyday are going to be "active" before they get married. They know it, the parents know it, , the Pope knows it, everyone knows it, but they continue this charade and deny reality.

Talk about making up numbers out of thin air.
I don't what the Catholic school 'activity' numbers are , but I am 100% certain that your 99% number is completely fabricated by you.

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by habernac

so why can't women be priests? Or bishops? Etc etc etc.... only men can be in positions of power, why is that?

I don't know, same reason men aren't nuns?
Anyways, I am just saying all the catholics that I know (men and women) seem to value women as equals.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jonesy

Talk about making up numbers out of thin air.
I don't what the Catholic school 'activity' numbers are , but I am 100% certain that your 99% number is completely fabricated by you.

Oh I made it up, no doubt about it, but I think it's probably in the ballpark.

What percentage of people do you believe wait until marriage to have sex for the first time?

[jonesy]

besides me?
not sure.....

[jonesy]

I think it is probably pretty low, it just seemed like you were throwing a number with great gusto, but no backup.