Well, those crazy Brits have once again let reason trump the arguments of the nut cases:
Schoolgirls in Britain will be vaccinated against the virus that causes cervical cancer from September 2008, ministers have announced.So, Great Britain must not have religious fanatics who oppose vaccinating children, arguing that protecting girls from a killer virus will encourage them to be more promiscuous, right? Wrong, actually - GB has its nutters too:
Some have expressed concerns that providing a jab to protect against a sexually transmitted infection to children at a young age might encourage promiscuity.Yup - the UK has its share of morons, wackos, and heartless misogynists too, they just aren't letting them run things.
When will the U.S. follow suit?
UPDATE: Our friends across the pond at the f-word have also noticed their comparative good fortune, writing that unlike the citizens of the United States, future generations of Brits will "...not look back and say that our politicians forfeited the lives of thousands of women in an attempt to prove a supposedly-moral point." How long before we will be able to write the same?
Posts
3 comments:
Well, actually the original studies were fantastic on the HPV vaccine, we have no true long term information. I don't know if I would run out and get it immediately (I'm too damn old, anyway).
Also, for true protection, we need to give it to boys as well. There's little help from just giving to a few to reduce the overall rates. Men can get cancer from the virus (read anal cancer).
It is odd that there has not been more discussion about vaccinating boys. Debates I've seen have centered on whether the vaccination should be mandatory for girls.
If anyone has a link to the original and recent studies, I would love to do more reading about this.
Yet, how could we obtain long-term information without going ahead and administering the vaccination?
Post a Comment