Low income women out of luck? - page 2
Thought provoking article... From American Prospect: It's the daughters of lower-income, minority families who are really at risk. Cervical cancer has a high survival rate if treated early,... Read More
Feb 20, '07It's funny but my oldest daughter and I were discussing this vaccine earlier today. She is a college graduate, a professional and lives in Kentucky. She had been to her GYN who had discussed this vaccine with her and she decided to get the series. She told me that KY is considering making it mandatory that all girls have it prior to junior high school.
Feb 20, '07Quote from ingeleinAn excellent point is brought up in this discussion, for Texas, a "conservative" state to mandate this smacks of something fishy, maybe a little too influenced by a big push for this by the drug companies? I think if this vaccine works the way they say mothers would be foolish to not encourage girls to get it, BUT I think its just another ploy to make alot of money, and getting a state to force this on girls is reprehensible.
Feb 20, '07But HPV as a sexually transmitted disease will affect others. Other sexual partners then contract the virus so surely it is therefore a communicable disease. It is insidious and will take a while before causing cervical cancer which is not as dramatic as a diptheria or tetanus.
Feb 20, '07Quote from kidznursehmmm... you do have a point there, but to force this on a girl that is not yet sexually active?maybe this should be part of sex education ciriculum , then offer it to the girls at a certain age with parents consent?it's communicable , but not in every day activities as is diptheria, etc.but hpv as a sexually transmitted disease will affect others. other sexual partners then contract the virus so surely it is therefore a communicable disease. it is insidious and will take a while before causing cervical cancer which is not as dramatic as a diptheria or tetanus.
Feb 20, '07Quote from ingeleinthen again one idea of mmr ( measles mumps rubella) vaccination is to prevent infection to future unborn foetus, and to prevent sterility in post pubertal males so it's given in immunisation schedule to pre pubertal children. vaccination here is not mandatory and there are some who are anti vaccination which is a democratic right which i respect. however some children don't avail of national free vaccination through parental apathy rather than choice.hmmm... you do have a point there, but to force this on a girl that is not yet sexually active?maybe this should be part of sex education ciriculum , then offer it to the girls at a certain age with parents consent?it's communicable , but not in every day activities as is diptheria, etc.
we do have high teen pregnancy rates in this country particularly among lower socio economic groups who are at greater teen risk behaviours including promiscuity .therefore the need for pre pubertal vaccination if at all for optimal benefit. we do have 11 year olds giving birth here but more 13 an 14 year olds.
Feb 21, '07Quote from passgasserI never disagreed with you, so I don't know why you think I missed your point.Sorry, but I think you missed my point. This isn't a liberal versus conservative issue. Neither is it an issue of who we will or won't protect. It is an issue that nurses need to be concerned with, but from more than one angle. From a public health viewpoint, this vaccination could be a boon. However, from a freedom standpoint, making it mandatory is troubling. Whatever anyone's feelings about R v W, one thing it did clearly establish was that a woman's body and mind are her own. It made it clear, very correctly I think, that neither the state nor the church have the right to dictate what her beliefs should be, nor have they any right to dictate what she should do with her body. This is a very just and correct standard.
I am concerned that by making this vaccination mandatory we would be taking a step back from this standard.
And protecting people from themselves most certainly does tend to lend itself to a particular persuasion...and it's not mine.
Feb 21, '07Quote from jjjoyGeneralizations are often the foundation of opinion from any position. Not always the most effective, but not necessarily inaccurate.Such generalizations are not constructive. If you consider yourself conservative does that mean that you agree with every other person out there who is labelled conservative?
I'm not picking on you Shamira specifically. Useless generalizations are quite common and I'm just as guilty as the next person.
These kinds of generalization are good for blowing off steam with others who agree with you but are not constructive in mixed company. For example, you might blow off steam to another understanding nurse about a 'needy' patient who is 'wasting your time' but you're not (hopefully) not going to gripe to the patient that they are 'too needy' and 'wasting your time'.
I don't agree with every conservative, but I'm not so naive as to be unaware of the tendency and nature of people who 'generally' tend to promote certain ideologies. And I hardly would compare the mixed company here to be the same as an exchange with a fellow RN vs. a patient.
Feb 21, '07I disagree with any state mandating vaccination for a disease that is not spread through casual contact.
The government should not interfere in parents' rights to decide what is best for their children. What's next, mandatory HIV tests as a pre-requisite for high school graduation? This is certainly a slippery slope IMO.