I just read a news report on the BBC website that a vaccine that stops the 2 virii that cause cervical cancer could become manufactured within a year.

It is suggested also that the vaccine will work better if given to 10 to 13 year olds. There is some outcry that this will encourage underage sex.

I'm not sure about the rest of you but this sounds fairly ridiculous to me. I didn't know cervical cancer was caused by a virus until I read the report and how likely is it that a 13 year old girl is going to know this. Surely they would be much more worried about pregnancy and other STIs?

What are your thoughts? Would the vaccine encourage it? I certainly don't think so.

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4317972.stm

Wilf

Absolutely not. The vaccine is being given at this age because it is shown to be more effective if done so, not because children of that age are likely to acquire the HPV virus through having sex.

It appears that the people who claim this are the ones who also seem to think cervical cancer is the product of a 'lifestyle choice made by women'.

Some people still live in the dark ages.... crazy.

Wilf

First of all you can't make a vaccine compulsory.

But no, I don't think it would in any way encourage it. It could probably be combined with the TB jab which you get at around that age (complete guess, I've no idea if it could acutally be combined).

I think that there's little in this that will encourage underage sex, purely because I think that the vast majority of young girls are ignorant of 2 things

1 that HPV is a direct cause of many cervical cancers (after a few years of being left undetected)

2 that the way to catch HPV is to have sex with a carrier.

If more people were aware of these facts then there's a possibility that this could be an implied permission to engage in sex, but if it is coupled with the 'condom condom condom' message and good education, then I reckon that the same number who would have had sex anyway will have sex, but they'll be a little bit safer.

Hmm odd one that. I've always known that the earlier a female begins to have sex - the more likely she is to develop cervical cancer, just didn't know it was virus based. I think if girls thought they were MORE likely to get cancer by having underage sex, maybe that would put them off a little. On the opposing argument, knowing they are protected could give them carte blanche to go ahead. Maybe if it was available at 16 since that's the legal age for consent? Maybe more of them would wait?

I don't think 13 yr olds know or care about STD's - I think the injection will neither encourage or discourage them from doing whatever it is they do.

Originally posted by Zebra
Hmm odd one that. I've always known that the earlier a female begins to have sex - the more likely she is to develop cervical cancer, just didn't know it was virus based. I think if girls thought they were MORE likely to get cancer by having underage sex, maybe that would put them off a little. On the opposing argument, knowing they are protected could give them carte blanche to go ahead. Maybe if it was available at 16 since that's the legal age for consent? Maybe more of them would wait?

since most of them are unaware of the risk at the moment, protecting them from it would be unlikely to alter their behaviour.

And since teenagers are unable to make accurate assessments of risk knowing about the risk probably wouldn't alter their behaviour either.

Biggest load of b******s I have ever read (including many of royjames' posts).

'Critics' comments like that just go to show what complete morons the moral majority are in this country. These self-elected protectors-of-our-nations-morals are willing to put the health of women at risk (or at least willing to stop the risk being decreased) because there is a vague hint of a possibility that some (really really really) dim girls are gonna think 'hey, I can't get cervical cancer now, lets go and shag loads of boys behind the bikesheds'.

I bet a significant portion of my future earnings that the 'critics' referred to in the article read the Daily Mail.





:rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:

I don't think the fear of cervical cancer is stopping teenagers from having sex.
At that age you tend to think you're immortal anyway so having a jab that will protect you from cervical cancer won't make a jot of difference to them.

Originally posted by Cyclone
since most of them are unaware of the risk at the moment, protecting them from it would be unlikely to alter their behaviour.

And since teenagers are unable to make accurate assessments of risk knowing about the risk probably wouldn't alter their behaviour either.

But if they were told and it became a part of sex education perhaps it would affect them. I feel it would have put me off if I was told about it. I wasn't promiscuous and I did wait but I think the risk would have scared me if I had been so inclined.
Maybe it would bring about a small attitude change in society, knowing that sex would be somewhat safer after 16 as well as legal, maybe it would be a bigger incentive than it is now. In essence it seems it's a legal issue which most people don't want to wrangle over anyway, which makes it a little pointless. A law which no one seems to abide by.
If you knew it could have greater consequences than being grounded for a month, just maybe someone would think twice?
Rather like the in-your-face smoking and abuse ads, maybe a similar style education about female cancers would educate young women enough to delay their activity.

Zebra, while I can see your point, there is no way I would want to risk the lives of underage teenage girls by not giving them the vaccine until the legal age of consent.

Lets face it, some people ARE going to have sex before 16, with or without the vaccine and that won't change. Does this mean that we accept that we leave them at risk because they shouldn't be doing it?

I think that this is last on the list of worries a teenage girl has if she has underage sex, the highest being getting pregnant and/or caught. It isn't another weapon to use in the fight against underage sex, and other STIs are much scarier and they aren't used as scare tactics now. Perhaps they should be used instead, but not something we can prevent from happening.

Wilf

Originally posted by BrainThrust
Zebra, while I can see your point, there is no way I would want to risk the lives of underage teenage girls by not giving them the vaccine until the legal age of consent.


Valid point, although I can imagine there will be some clause in the human rights act which might stipulate about not protecting children from something they shouldn't be doing in the first place. (I'm not saying that's the case but you can imagine there will be some hitch along those lines).
I wouldn't want to jeapordise lives but neither give permission to just go ahead anyway. I dunno, good job I don't have to make these decisions eh?

Seeing as the vaccine is eliminating a risk they're not told about/unaware of anyway, surely its not making any difference at all?

Originally posted by Twiglet
Seeing as the vaccine is eliminating a risk they're not told about/unaware of anyway, surely its not making any difference at all?

The fact that a risk exists and there is something available that will lower/eliminate that risk is of itself a reason to use it. I can't believe you're using the don't know/can't hurt argument.

I think Twiglet is using the 'don't know/won't make a differense to underage sex statistics' argument.

WIlf

In which case I apologise :help:

Sorry yes I meant it in the context that if they don't know about that risk anyway, its not something that is currently putting them off having underage sex, so vaccinating them against it won't make any difference to their perception of the risks of having sex. (i.e. it won't encourage them, so the critics of the vaccine are completely wrong)

Originally posted by Twiglet
Sorry yes I meant it in the context that if they don't know about that risk anyway, its not something that is currently putting them off having underage sex, so vaccinating them against it won't make any difference to their perception of the risks of having sex. (i.e. it won't encourage them, so the critics of the vaccine are completely wrong)

Apologies again Twiglet, firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick

Originally posted by limpetboy
Apologies again Twiglet, firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick

No problem, its been a long Friday at work I'm not managing to get my words out very coherently :D

I doubt it will encourage underage sex, if the jab is going to be administered to girls that young, it'll be just like the TB jab - it was quite a big deal actually having it, what with the older kids and their scare stories ;) but to most kids it was an inconvenience that was soon over with and forgotten, with little talk about *why* they were actually having it, and what it actually protects a person from. Most discussion was along the lines of 'My scab is better than your scab'. :D

Assuming the jab is safe, I think it's a very positive thing that potentially will save many lives, which can only be a good thing! :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Zebra
But if they were told and it became a part of sex education perhaps it would affect them. I feel it would have put me off if I was told about it. I wasn't promiscuous and I did wait but I think the risk would have scared me if I had been so inclined.
Maybe it would bring about a small attitude change in society, knowing that sex would be somewhat safer after 16 as well as legal, maybe it would be a bigger incentive than it is now. In essence it seems it's a legal issue which most people don't want to wrangle over anyway, which makes it a little pointless. A law which no one seems to abide by.
If you knew it could have greater consequences than being grounded for a month, just maybe someone would think twice?
Rather like the in-your-face smoking and abuse ads, maybe a similar style education about female cancers would educate young women enough to delay their activity.

the risk of HIV is already not putting them off, so what makes you think that the far less publicised risk of cervical cancer will put them off? And that vacinating them against this risk (which they are currently unaware of) will then make them want to have sex more or younger.

The law of course exists to protect children not from each other, but from adults who might take advantage of them. People certainly do take notice of it when the ages of people involved are more than a few years apart.

I really can't see there being anything relevant in the Human Rights act, especially not that would stop the vacination, it doesn't protect against something they 'shouldn't be doing' as you put it, it protects against a virus which can cause a type of cancer, the most common way of contracting that virus is through intercourse, but it's not the only way, and that's really not relevant anyway.

I don't think for one minute that teenagers are holding back from having sex for fear of the HPVirus. Lets face it I bet 99% of them have never heard of it so in answer to your question, no I don't think that it will encourage underage sex.

BTW the vaccine couldn't be compulsory- no vaccine is that.

Originally posted by Cyclone
the risk of HIV is already not putting them off, so what makes you think that the far less publicised risk of cervical cancer will put them off?
I really can't see there being anything relevant in the Human Rights act, especially not that would stop the vacination, it doesn't protect against something they 'shouldn't be doing' as you put it, it protects against a virus which can cause a type of cancer, the most common way of contracting that virus is through intercourse, but it's not the only way, and that's really not relevant anyway.
Ok, sorry if I jangled your bell in some way, all I'm saying is that IMO I think it would have scared me at 13 - 16.
Aids and HIV has always seemed less relevent to me in a way but perhaps because I knew someone with cervical cancer but never met anyone with Aids or HIV and statisically I always thought there was a higher risk of cancer than the others.
Furthermore, it's easier to protect against HIV and Aids since most cancers are developed as far as I'm aware rather than transmitted.
Also, the protecting against something they are doing - of course I meant protecting them against a consequence of what they are doing. If, in theory, someone is not meant to ... say.... ride a motorcycle underage - why buy them a crash helmet just in case they do?
I sort of see the vaccine the same way.
Anyway, I'm for it in that it will save lives, prevent misery etc.
Not meaning to upset anyone, I just have strong views about underage activities.

no jangling, I just thought that your argument was a bit weak.
Cancer is something developed, but in this case the cause of the cancer is a virus, exactly the same as the cause of HIV (different virus obviously). So the risk is identical in type, the actual chance of contracting the virus is probably much higher as carriers are often symptomless (indeed somepeople probably have it for life and never know).
Your suggestion about the vaccination being in contravention to human rights just doesn't sound very logical to me. It's like suggesting that buying a crash helmet for a child would be illegal because they shouldn't be riding a motorbike! And it ignores the fact that the age of consent differs across europe.
The HRC protects the rights of individuals, since it would be a voluntary vaccination (as they all are) I can't see how it could be infringing anyones right to anything.

It doesn't neceessarily contravene the HRC, I just meant it will probably go against some mode of conduct in some official capacity or provoke a media argument about the propriety of it all etc.
I honestly didn't consider the age of consent across Europe, was only thinking of the UK. In Holland it would be very useful I would imagine, as an example.
I still think someone, somewhere, in some official capacity will argue the 'green light' implications of giving such a jab. Maybe not HRC but something...

Originally posted by Zebra
It doesn't neceessarily contravene the HRC, I just meant it will probably go against some mode of conduct in some official capacity or provoke a media argument about the propriety of it all etc.
I honestly didn't consider the age of consent across Europe, was only thinking of the UK. In Holland it would be very useful I would imagine, as an example.
I still think someone, somewhere, in some official capacity will argue the 'green light' implications of giving such a jab. Maybe not HRC but something...

well yeah, it's already happening in the media, hence this thread.

Originally posted by Zebra
It doesn't neceessarily contravene the HRC, I just meant it will probably go against some mode of conduct in some official capacity or provoke a media argument about the propriety of it all etc.
I honestly didn't consider the age of consent across Europe, was only thinking of the UK. In Holland it would be very useful I would imagine, as an example.
I still think someone, somewhere, in some official capacity will argue the 'green light' implications of giving such a jab. Maybe not HRC but something...

This really does confuse me.

a) As I've already said, children of this age are unlikely to be aware of the risk of HPV transmission during sex so it is unlikely to be a current deterrant so I can't see how giving them the vaccination will change this

b) The point of giving them the vaccine at this age is because it means it is more effective whatever the age the child becomes sexually active . Surely it is better therefore to give them all the best chance of future protection?

As someone has said on the BBC website, before the MMR jab all girls were vaccinated against Rubella once we reached the age it was possible for us to bear children, is this situation so different to that?

AbsNot read all this thread but it is a ludicrous suggestion that it will eencourage underage sex. As though the threat of cervical cancer stops underage girls having sex.

Is anyone outside of the leader column of the Daily Mail bothered by this story?