I realize that this post might provoke a host of comments that I’m not prepared to answer. It’s a touchy subject. But it’s one that merits discussion, and certainly among those of us who occupy ourselves daily with the well-being of adolescents.
A recent national study revealed that one in four girls between age 14 and 17 are infected with at least one of the four most common sexually transmitted diseases (human papillomavirus or HPV, chlamydia, genital herpes and trichomoniasis).
HPV is the virus that causes cervical cancer; but a recently developed vaccine can vastly reduce girls’ risk for cervical cancer by immunizing against HPV. The CDC recommends that girls should be vacccinated at age 11, before they become sexually active. But parents have raised objections to this recommendation, and a slew of articles about HPV have debated whether or not the vaccine could “promote” girls’ promiscuity.
As I begin my middle school placement for student teaching, I can’t imagine these small, innocent 7th graders engaging in sexual activity. But at the same time, I am confronted almost daily with reminders of the disconnect between the adult and adolescent world – reminders in the form of innuendo and comments that suggest an iceberg of unknown activity among teens.
I don’t know what the answers are, but I do know that kids grow up faster than any of us would like. And sometimes, if kids are uninformed, that growing up can come with a high price tag of disease.
To read more about this issue in the news, visit links to the following articles in The New York Times:
Sex Infections Found in Quarter of Teenage Girls
Vaccinating Boys for Girls’ Sake?
- Rachel Bowers
I’m an extremely conservative Christian and have an objection to this vaccine being a REQIRED vaccine for children attending public schools. Children don’t give each other HPV on the school bus (one would hope!!!), so it would not be a compelling state interest to place that burden on the parents.
I believe based on my reading that the risks are not fully explained to to people receiving the shot. I’d want the shot to be out a lot longer than a few years before placing my daughter under the needle. (She’s an infant now, so it would be!)
I’m not stupid or naive, however. I can’t object to the shot on some moral ground that it would “promote promiscuity.” I don’t think it would because my children grow up with a very real sense of right and wrong from their family. I know that rape happens, however. I know that my daughter may enter into marriage with an infected partner (hopefully one who has changed his lifestyle).
I would feel the same way about an HIV vaccine, although I hear through the grapevine that they are developing one (or trying to develop one, more accurately) using a process that would be morally wrong for us to support. Any product that uses aborted fetal cells in any part of the manufacturing or development process is OUT for us.
That means no MMR vaccine, incidentally. I would be willing to get measles and mumps for my children separately, but these are not available in America. I don’t have zillions of dollars on hand to take everyone off to France where it is.
It would be nice if vaccine developers listened to the people who would be purchasing the shots when making decisions like this. That’s off-topic, though.
As to vaccinating boys to protect girls, we already do things like that in our society to the EXTREME. We would need no rubella vaccine just for the CHILDRENS’ sake. It usually only severely affects the fetus of the woman who contracts it. We would need no flu vaccine for children for the most part, because most of the people who die from the flu are elderly and unable to derive the same benefit from the vaccine as children.
That being said, I wouldn’t vaccinate my boys to protect girls. It’s all very theoretical anyway if one saves oneself for marriage. I think the vaccine people just want to sell a lot of product when I read things like that.
I think Mrs. C makes a good point when she notes that a girl may one day marry someone who has had a “different” lifestyle (and rape is a similar example). This debate is not “theoretical” in the least. To me, promoting the HPV vaccine does not involve condoning or condemning sex before marriage. For me, it means preventing cancer and acknowledging the uncertainty of the future. It means that tragedy affects all of us in a broken world, regardless of lifestyle.