Low income women out of luck?

  1. Thought provoking article...

    From American Prospect: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...rticleId=12428
    It's the daughters of lower-income, minority families who are really at risk.
    Cervical cancer has a high survival rate if treated early, but early treatment depends on regular screenings. Lower-income women are less likely to receive annual pap smears -- and so for them, the disease is more likely to be deadly. More than half of all U.S. women diagnosed with cervical cancer have not had a pap test in the last three years, and the incidence of cervical cancer is approximately 1.5 times higher among African American and Latina women than among white women.
    That's why state-level debates over whether to make the vaccine mandatory for 11- and 12-year-old girls are so important. Women's health advocates are concerned that lower-income girls -- those who need the vaccine most -- won't get the shots unless they are required for school admission. "Drop-out rates begin at 13," said Cynthia Dailard*, senior public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute. "How do we reach these individuals before they're disconnected from health care later in life? This is a key way to do that." Historically, requiring vaccines for school attendance has helped to close racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic gaps in immunization rates.
    •  
  2. 20 Comments

  3. by   kidznurse
    Free vaccintions for childhood diseases are available in NZ with HPV vaccine is being introduced now but our uptake rate across theboard still lags behind other OECD countries among the disengaged and marginalised children. I think tying these vaccinations into the state benefits would be an added incentive . HPV infection is in general a sexually transmitted disease vaccinating against one infection is not going to prevent other sexually transmitted diseases amongst young women. More effort should be put into sexual safety and developing emotional resilience.

    I recently nursed a congenitally acquired very sick syphillitic neonate where the teenage mother had avoided antenatal care which routinely screens for syphillis and would have treated with 10cent a dose penicillen. Motherwas free to choose whether to have antenatal care but baby pays with probable brain damage for life. No recourse for the baby. Again I think antenatal care should be compulsory or tied into a state benefit.

    Despite being a liberal I have come to the realisation if we really want kids rights to be respected some parental rights need to be re- evaulated. Your thoughts?
  4. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from kidznurse
    Free vaccintions for childhood diseases are available in NZ with HPV vaccine is being introduced now but our uptake rate across theboard still lags behind other OECD countries among the disengaged and marginalised children. I think tying these vaccinations into the state benefits would be an added incentive . HPV infection is in general a sexually transmitted disease vaccinating against one infection is not going to prevent other sexually transmitted diseases amongst young women. More effort should be put into sexual safety and developing emotional resilience.

    I recently nursed a congenitally acquired very sick syphillitic neonate where the teenage mother had avoided antenatal care which routinely screens for syphillis and would have treated with 10cent a dose penicillen. Motherwas free to choose whether to have antenatal care but baby pays with probable brain damage for life. No recourse for the baby. Again I think antenatal care should be compulsory or tied into a state benefit.

    Despite being a liberal I have come to the realisation if we really want kids rights to be respected some parental rights need to be re- evaulated. Your thoughts?
    I think that children deserve protection period. This does sound like neglect and I don't have an answer other than we need to think about ways to protect our most precious resource.
  5. by   txspadequeenRN
    i just came across something last week while surfing. if you live in texas low income women could be able to get something like womens medicaid for annual exams and birth control. it is not enforce as of yet but i understand it is coming.. i wish i had a link, cause this is a very good thing....
  6. by   passgasser
    Quote from HM2Viking
    That's why state-level debates over whether to make the vaccine mandatory for 11- and 12-year-old girls are so important. Women's health advocates are concerned that lower-income girls -- those who need the vaccine most -- won't get the shots unless they are required for school admission.
    Mandatory. In theory I think this is a good idea. We already mandate certain vaccines for children in order for them to register for school, why not include this vaccine? However, let me play the devil's advocate for a moment. (This is not my argument, but a point made by a co-worker. Nonetheless I think its a very valid argument.)

    Suppose we require young girls to get this vaccine. Would that not fly in the face of the admitted gains of Roe vs Wade? The fundamental principle on which R v W was argued was that a woman's body was her own, and she was free to choose what to do with her body. Would requirement of this (or any) vaccine constitute government control over our most private concern, our own body? And if such a vaccine were required, could that not be used as an argument against R v W?

    No argument, just food for thought.
  7. by   Shamira Aizza
    You're right...it makes no sense.

    We won't protect them in the womb, and we won't protect them from the behaviors that place them at risk, but we will force them to undergo an intervention that they might not want.

    Liberals believe in evolution, survival of the fittest, but then they fight it at every turn.
  8. by   jjjoy
    Quote from Shamira Aizza
    Liberals believe in evolution, survival of the fittest, but then they fight it at every turn.
    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'.
  9. by   sister--*
    A little co-latteral but still in the same vein: I find in my area that there are programs that low income women can take advantage of that allows them to get the screenings. However, when there is a diagnosis there arn't programs to assist them financially with treatment and care.

    Furthermore, when they go after insurance they are labeled with a pre-existing condition and there are generally long waiting periods before the condition is covered OR total exclusions.

    Such a dilemma.
  10. by   passgasser
    Quote from Shamira Aizza
    You're right...it makes no sense.

    We won't protect them in the womb, and we won't protect them from the behaviors that place them at risk, but we will force them to undergo an intervention that they might not want.

    Liberals believe in evolution, survival of the fittest, but then they fight it at every turn.
    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.
    Last edit by passgasser on Feb 20, '07
  11. by   Simplepleasures
    Quote from passgasser
    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.
    Scary , but I find myself agreeing with you. I think that this vaccine should be strongly suggested,but since it does not deal with a communicable disease such as diptheria, pertussis, etc., to force girls to get it is curtailing freedom of choice, no other persons are harmed by their choice , but themselves. Just goes to show people who usually have diametricly opposed opinions may actually see eye to eye on certain subjects.
    Last edit by Simplepleasures on Feb 20, '07
  12. by   MissBeehaves
    Yes, in TX the governor issued a mandate requiring it for pre-teen girls. However, the state congress is trying to overturn it, saying it would be a 'license to have sex' or some such nonsense. I work on a gyn/onc floor and if these people could just see the 20somethings dying from this disease, they would change their tune. It's estimated that 20-30 % of women have the strains of HPV that tend to lead to cervical cancer, and Im sure this includes married, one partner only women. Why on earth would they not want to prevent women from getting a preventable cancer?? Ugh!
  13. by   pickledpepperRN
    There is a long interesting discussion of this vaccine on this BB:

    http://allnurses.com/forums/f112/tex...ls-204799.html
  14. by   Simplepleasures
    Quote from spacenurse
    There is a long interesting discussion of this vaccine on this BB:

    http://allnurses.com/forums/f112/tex...ls-204799.html
    An 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.
    Last edit by Simplepleasures on Feb 20, '07

close