An irreverent, inclusive, alternative parenting community
Garding your pre-teens
Yes, mis-spelling intentional.
The CDC has recently approved the Gardasil vaccine (the one for girls to prevent HPV, which can lead to cervical cancer) for use in males to prevent genital warts, but they're still not sure about the cost-benefit of using it to prevent the transmission of HPV to females by building up a "herd immunity".
I fully intend on giving both my girls Gardasil when they reach age 11. My cousin has been ravaged by the HPV vaccine given to her by a cheating college boyfriend, and she's nearly died multiple times after the treatment for her cervical cancer obliterated her intestines and her ability to take in nutrients. My brother passed the HPV virus to his wife, because he had no outward symptoms until SHE got genital warts.
In both cases, the men passed the virus to the unknowing women. I cannot see how anyone would hem & haw over vaccinating males just because they won't get cancer from the virus. Why should the onus be on the females to be protected? Do we expect only women to carry around condoms because they're the ones that get pregnant?
In addition to your thoughts on this, I'd love to know whether or not you plan on vaccinating your SONS when they get to this age, even if it means paying out of pocket.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by bap2 on
-
Hell YES to vaccinating my son against HPV. When we found out that we were going to have a boy, I was so torn on circumcision. The AAP waffles, hell everyone waffles on it these days and the rates are only getting lower. The only thing I worried about (well BEFORE he went into the hospital for 2 weeks with a severe UTI), was him being more apt to pass on STDs being "uncut." My OB said to not worry about this in the least, because he thought "within the next 5 years" the HPV vaccine would be available for boys. Lo and behold...
Condoms are not as effective in preventing HPV as they are with other STDs like HIV. So I'll teach him to wear one all the time, but he needs the vaccine to cover all the bases. If any other vaccines for STDs come out, we will get those, too.
It whittles down to protecting yourself as well as the others around you. I feel by getting my son an HPV shot when he's 11 and not sexually active (umm, I hope?), I am showing and he is showing that he cares about his fellow partners. I would hope that his fellow partners did the same.
But I feel that way about all vaccines. I have gone out of my way to make sure that everyone in my household has an updated DTaP, because Pertussis is on the rise in our community. So even though my husband thinks "I don't come in contact with babies"...remember that time you passed the order separation bar at the checkout counter to the woman slinging a 3 week old? THAT. So we get stuck.
-
Permalink Reply by Digggy on -
I know the wife and I have talked about this for The Girl (she's getting it), but I would guess we'd have no problem giving it to the Boys as well. I'm a big fan of medicine. And hopefully by then, they will have some more information on the safety of it.
And I do think it is everyone's responsibility to help where they can. Everything sexual is not on the woman. And hey, maybe it'll make them more desirable. If they take after me, they can use all of the help they can get.
-
Permalink Reply by Kiwi on -
I will absolutely be vaccinating both 1st and 2nd Kid. I've seen HPV spread like wild fire through the dorms during undergrad. I know that at least two girls I was acquainted had hysterectomies before they age of 30 because of complications from cervical cancer.
I'd also love it if I could temporarily sterilize them both until they are 22. I'd rather not have any teen parents in my house if it can be at all avoided.
-
Permalink Reply by mcglory13 on -
Yes, of course I will vaccinate my son. I have no idea why women should bear the responsibility for a disease transmitted by sexual interaction.
-
Permalink Reply by terrierhead on -
What's not making the news are recent study results showing that oral HPV infection dramatically raises rates of throat cancer. Add that to their chances of getting and transmitting HPV through sexual activity, and I'll definitely get my little guys vaccinated.
-
Permalink Reply by Andromeda on -
"The greatest benefit in terms of health care costs is with decreasing cervical cancer and cervical abnormalities," Solomon says. "Men don't have a cervix."
wait a minute. those same boys come in contact with girls who DO have a cervix. so with such a low percentage of girls actually getting vaccinated (and not too likely to rise with all the anti-vax BS out there IMO) wouldn't it make sense to vaccinate AS MANT PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE to prevent the spread? the cost benefit is still there, although a little more passively.
does anyone know what the cut-off age is for the vaccine? i know they recommend it for kids who have not yet had sex, but what if it were a required vaccine to have for college? i imagine it only works if HPV isn't present in the person, so theoretically even if the person is sexually active they can still get the vaccine as long as they don't have HPV. right?
and i will be asking for that vaccine for my sons.
-
Permalink Reply by terrierhead on
-
The cut-off age is 26. Statistically, most Americans are sexually active by then. The trick is that HPV has such a large prevalence that a person has a really good chance of getting infected the first time he or she has sex. More Americans get HPV than don't - by age 50, more than 80% of women have at least one strain of HPV.
Why yes, I do lecture on STIs as part of my job.
Andromeda said:"The greatest benefit in terms of health care costs is with decreasing cervical cancer and cervical abnormalities," Solomon says. "Men don't have a cervix."
wait a minute. those same boys come in contact with girls who DO have a cervix. so with such a low percentage of girls actually getting vaccinated (and not too likely to rise with all the anti-vax BS out there IMO) wouldn't it make sense to vaccinate AS MANT PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE to prevent the spread? the cost benefit is still there, although a little more passively.
does anyone know what the cut-off age is for the vaccine? i know they recommend it for kids who have not yet had sex, but what if it were a required vaccine to have for college? i imagine it only works if HPV isn't present in the person, so theoretically even if the person is sexually active they can still get the vaccine as long as they don't have HPV. right?
and i will be asking for that vaccine for my sons.
-
Permalink Reply by ks on -
Both my boys will be getting it as soon as they are old enough. Which, seeing as how N is 8 now, will be in the next couple of years.
Also, I like Kiwi's idea of temporary sterilization. Assuming straightness, I don't want any teenage parents running around my house either. I want to be well into my 50s (at least) before I become a grandmother.
-
Permalink Reply by DLBK on -
I will have my son vaccinated in a few years. By then all the side effects of this vaccine will have been identified--not that I think it would necessarily have serious side effects.
As the rest of you have said, I don't believe that it's a woman's job to protect against STI or pregnancy. It's the job of the couple deciding to have sex.
-
Permalink Reply by StitchyWench on -
This is what pissed me off about the vaccine in the beginning when it was first approved just for females, with limited trials on women. Young men were not encouraged to get vaccinated even though they spread the disease and many of the initial HPV vaccination trials were begun to combat HPV caused secondary diseases, including anal cancer, in gay men. They are at a 17% greater risk than straight men, of contracting anal cancer (it's believed HPV is the explanation for that difference).
I plan on getting my daughter vaccinated, but probably not before she is 13. She will be due for other vaccines at that time, so might as well do it all at once. As for my son, absolutely! How horrible would it be for him to live with the guilt of having passed on a virus that can cause the death of somebody he loves, when the prevention was a simple vaccine?
-
Permalink Reply by StitchyWench on
-
The beauty is that usually around 7th or 8th grade (when kids are about 13) they are due for a bunch of boosters. This is when most girls have been getting their HPV vaccine, because they are not yet sexually active (in most cases). The same for the boys. It's really the perfect time for them to get the vaccine, it would seem.
Andromeda said:"The greatest benefit in terms of health care costs is with decreasing cervical cancer and cervical abnormalities," Solomon says. "Men don't have a cervix."
wait a minute. those same boys come in contact with girls who DO have a cervix. so with such a low percentage of girls actually getting vaccinated (and not too likely to rise with all the anti-vax BS out there IMO) wouldn't it make sense to vaccinate AS MANT PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE to prevent the spread? the cost benefit is still there, although a little more passively.
does anyone know what the cut-off age is for the vaccine? i know they recommend it for kids who have not yet had sex, but what if it were a required vaccine to have for college? i imagine it only works if HPV isn't present in the person, so theoretically even if the person is sexually active they can still get the vaccine as long as they don't have HPV. right?
and i will be asking for that vaccine for my sons.
-
Permalink Reply by Herasmus B. Dragon on
-
I had forgotten this portion of the article. Yes!
terrierhead said:What's not making the news are recent study results showing that oral HPV infection dramatically raises rates of throat cancer.
© 2012 Created by Offsprunger.
Powered by 
.
