This winter I have observed a phenomenon that has really blown my mind.
Well, I guess it started in the fall. They started playing commercials that went something like, "Did you know that you could get cervical cancer from a virus? I didn't know" "A virus?" "Tell someone you love, tell all the women in your life." Etc., etc., on and on. I noticed these commercials as they SEEMED to be public service announcements. No product was mentioned, but no association was mentioned either. Odd. And the commercials seemed confusing to me...like they were saying that you could catch a virus that caused cervical cancer just like you could catch the common cold. Like, "Ooops, I got sneezed on at school, caught this pesky virus and now I have cancer. Who knew?" It seemed like partial info to me, but since it was not marketing anything, I had no reason to suspect any wrongdoing. It seemed to be just commonplace ignorance.
But as many of you have now heard, there is a new vaccine out on the market. And funny enough, somewhere about December, the PSAs about this virus morphed into commercials for the new wonder drug, Guardisil. Don't you want to be "One less" by taking our vaccine? It protects some people for one of the possible causes of cervical cancer, namely HPV or the Human papiloma virus.
What upsets me is not that a vaccine would be developed for HPV. Disease prevention is very important and very good. What irks me is the deception clothed in half truths. The commercials pretend to be educating woman about a health concern. Instead, they are setting women up to think that a specific drug or shot is the only way to avoid a potentially deadly disease.
THis disease is primarily, although not solely, transmitted sexually. All one need to say to be truely educational is, "If you don't have sex outside of a monogomous marriage to another virgin, you have almost no chance of getting this disease." This way people can truely understand how you get the disease, how to prevent the disease, and whether or not they should get the vaccine.
You know one of my biggest fears on this one? THat they will find in 10 years that this vaccine prevents HPV while increasing the risk of some other dread disease. Or that girls will increase risky behavior due to not fully understanding the risks that still are associated with premarital sex.
We need good information, not half truths, in order to really help our kids. If you want to be "one less" blind fool, get your own information and then talk to your kids and other important women in your life about the truth. And let your politicians know that we want one or two less drug companies being allowed to buy the right to decieve!!
OK, I have already have one person who disagrees with my passion on this point. Am I wrong? Let me know....
Facts on Tax: Democratic Plan v. Republican Plan
2 months ago
10 comments:
Interesting. There's been a lot of conflict over this in our region, because kids in I think Maryland and DC are being required to get the vaccine. I'm in favor of the requirement, and Jeff isn't (or at least he plays devil's advocate with me -- I don't want to speak for him too stridently). I'm in favor not just because I think non-monogamous sex is a fact of many teenagers lives -- for many reasons, including that they don't get good education about sex from parents and teachers -- but also because I think even girls who are very sexually responsible can be at risk -- if they are raped, or if they are deceived by a dishonest husband, or for the reasons you mentioned. Is there any talk of requiring the vaccine down there, and if so, what do you think?
At the same time, I agree that the commercials play as if exposure to the disease is a foregone conclusion -- as you say, like the common cold. If young girls are out there having to make adult choices about sex, then the very least we can do for them is give them all the information.
I agree about the information, but I have a problem with the mandate. It is just another way to let parents off the hook and actually train people to talk less about the serious issues that affect our lives. As I have said before, I don't even like the fact that we have based our education system on public schooling. Invlving the government always wastes money and releases the people from responsibility. It increases a feeling of entitlement.
In the case of madated vaccination, I fear that people will feel entitled to sex without consequences. "But you said if I got that shot I would be safe".
I am not against the vaccination, as I said. I just want it to be something that actually does decrease incidents of disease. It needs to be part of a bigger conversation. And, at least based on the commercials for it, that is not what is happening.
We've had some discussion here about the vaccine, but I don't think anyone is trying to mandate it here. Yet...
Deb, I couldn't post the article I sent you, due to copyright issues, but if anyone is interested in reading more, there is a very informative article on msn.com entitled "Drugmaker stops lobbying efforts for STD shots Merck criticized by parents and doctors for pushing cervical cancer vaccine".
Check it out.
The media are masters of deceit. From Jerry Seinfeld to the movie moguls, the mainline message is that you can engage in sexual intercourse at will with any adorable stranger and not pay a medical or psychological price. I think this is deceitful. Very few of us can engage in a pattern of intimacy/rejection/intimacy/rejection ad infinitum, without paying a very high psychological price. The medical price is high also, and it is, (I agree with you) not just a lie, but a deliberate lie for the sake of monetary gain, to pretend that certain diseases are caused by anything but irresponsible sex.
That said, I suppose those of us who do have, have had, and hope to always have had sex with only one partner, must admit we are in the minority. Stats say that 85% of high school grads have already engaged in intercourse.
The vaccine is a good thing, but it should be distributed and advertised honestly.
brd said:
The medical price is high also, and it is, (I agree with you) not just a lie, but a deliberate lie for the sake of monetary gain, to pretend that certain diseases are caused by anything but irresponsible sex.
I disagree with this statement. There are certain diseases that are USUALLY caused by sex. That's different than saying ALWAYS caused by IRRESPONSIBLE sex.
Even having sex with only one person will not definitely protect you from STDs; I think each of us can probably name at least one person we know who engaged in faithful sex with an unfaithful partner.
I don't think mandating a vaccine precludes the important discussions that should always occur between children and their parents regarding sex; perhaps it serves as a good opportunity to explain the nature of STDs, how they are spread, and how they can be prevented. Similarly, I don't think NOT administering the vaccine is going to cause any irresponsible parents out there to finally get up the gumption to have "the sex talk" with their kids.
Again, this doesn't excuse omissions from the advertising or what I feel is shameless lobbying by the drug companies. Ads are basically just an excuse to lie to people, which is a sad state of things.
If I am faithful but my partner is not and I get the STD, the STD is still caused by irresponsible sex, just not my own irresponsibility.
Of course I am forgetting toilet seats and that is a big cause of disease too. ;}
Yeah, I think maybe the real issue is that I want to make room for a category between lifelong monogamy and irresponsible sex. Among people who don't aspire to lifelong monogamy, I think there are still people who make very careful and responsible sexual choices, but who still could meet with some exposure to disease.
And because I do not feel the need to make room for a "responsible category" between lifelong monogomy and irresponsible sex, I am able to fully agree with mom. Of course with the toilet caveat and one I heard of...the trying on clothes caveat. As gross as this sounds, I can only think that the person I was talking to meant something like trying on bathisuits with out underwear. Double gross)
Any "careful" sexual choice will lead you to monogomy. I know, I come from a Christian worldview that may not fly in the world, but I am sorry, it is not about Christianity only. Sexuality outside lifelong committment leads to babies (thousands of fatherless babies, many supported by the government. Also many unplanned pregnancies that lead "responsible" people to have abortions. The medical cost of all of this alone is prohibitive.) It leads to disease, as we have discussed here, and it leads to internal hurt. It is a rare case that does not lead to one of these three things. And you may argue that this is the "responsible category" in between. But I argue that the person who speeds but never has an accident or gets a ticket is just as irresponsible as the one who does.
OK, now that I have offended everyone who does not share this view, I am sorry. But I get tired of having to Kow tow to the I'm OK, Your OK society that we live in all the time.
Oh, and if I grant you this in between category, I would still argue that it is irresponsible sex that spreads the disease rampantly, but so called responsible sex could then in turn be a vessel for its spread as well.
I have been mulling this over in my head. It started with the comment I made on Lions Den about every day being a virgin day. I want to respond to anne gg's thoughts, but I haven't organized the thoughts yet. She is making a valid point in some way. But cadh8, I tend to feel all the feelings you are expressing. I'll work on a post for my blog. Maybe I'll call it "Today is the first virgin day of the rest of your life."
Today I heard an update to this story. The story stated that Guardasil has stopped campaigning to make these vaccinations mandatory. This was a story on NPR. But what got me about this one was that the headline made a statement about the "first vaccine for a cancer. No matter what you think about this vaccine, it is not a vaccine for a cancer. It is a vaccine for a virus that can lead to a cancer. 70% of all cases of cervical cancer to occur due to HPV infection. But getting the shot does not prevent cancer. It prevents the HPV infection. I wish these media people would present their stories with correct and precise language.
On the other hand, it is a great thing to think that cervical cancer could be cut by 70%. I hope that the actual facts bear out this prediction.
Post a Comment