HPV vaccine

[EeyoresButerfly]

I have sort of a dilemma. My mother is really encouraging me to get the HPV vaccine before I lose my opportunity (I’m 23 and right now 25 is the oldest you can be to get it.) She works in the lab of a hospital and sees on a daily basis how life-changing a diagnosis of HPV is. She also knows that I am saving sex for marriage. I talked to her on the phone tonight and she had a good point. She told me that just because I am not sexually active does not mean my future husband isn’t. I know there are many otherwise “good” catholic men (and women) who have engaged in premarital sex at some point in their life. She tells me I shouldn’t bet my reproductive health on my husband being honest with me about his sexual past.

Even so, I do feel kind of conflicted about the idea. I know it’s for my own good, but at the same time, it sort of feels like I’m saying “I trust you to be honest with me about your past, but I’m going to protect myself in case you’re not”, almost like getting a pre-nup. Advice?

 

[monicatholic]

to many of my very good Catholic friends, this vaccine presents no dilemas, but to me it does. i won’t articulate them here, but this argument sheds a different light on my objections. EB wrote

“I trust you to be honest with me about your past, but I’m going to protect myself in case you’re not”,

first, it’s not like a pre-nup because the possibilities are hypothetical. there is no SOMEBODY to whom you’re directing your doubts. there’s no relationship to distrust.

but let’s imagine there comes along a guy and he’s honest about his past and it included the sin of premarital sex, then is he off the list potential marriage partner because you didn’t have the vaccine?

all i can say EB, is that i have the same questions. additionally, because of the experience of immunization damage in my own family, i’m sooo conflicted over this one.

i’m looking forward to a poster offering a foundational principle to clarify this issue.

 

[whatevergirl]

Hi EB

I had this dilemma with my daughter last year, before we moved–she had a physical for school, and the doc was trying to talk me into my 11 year old having this vaccination, which I was not happy about. (of course they assume all teenagers will succomb to sexual pressure–but we opted out) It just did not seem appropriate for a 11 year old to have this.

Now, at your age, you’re living chastely, and your concerns are more with protecting yourself against the potential of someone else’s past…which is not sinful, and is quite wise, personally, I wouldn’t see anything wrong with it…from a Catholic perspective. I really think that it depends on the motivation. Many women get this vaccine because they know they will be sexual before marriage, and so they want this protection. Your reasons are for protection against your future husband’s past…so, it seems to be that getting the vaccination for those reason, wouldn’t be immoral. But marrying a virgin as well, is also possible…but suppose, you fall in love with a man who has a sexual past–even if it were just one partner prior to you. It is a tough choice I agree!

I hope I didn’t confuse you.

 

[StratusRose]

I am very leery of this vaccine for 2 reasons.

1. HPV has hundreds of different “strands”… kind of like the flu virus. From what I have read, the vaccine only protects against 3 of these strands.
2. This vaccine has not been on the “market” for very long and I am concerned about long term side effects. Seems to me that companies like Gardisil (makers of the vaccine) are scaring young women into getting it with out weighing the short and long term side effects. Also, I think it harbors a false sense of security.

 

[whatevergirl]

I am very leery of this vaccine for 2 reasons.

1. HPV has hundreds of different “strands”… kind of like the flu virus. From what I have read, the vaccine only protects against 3 of these strands.
2. This vaccine has not been on the “market” for very long and I am concerned about long term side effects. Seems to me that companies like Gardisil (makers of the vaccine) are scaring young women into getting it with out weighing the short and long term side effects. Also, I think it harbors a false sense of security.

My ob/gyn was cautious as well, in giving it to teenagers…she told me her reasoning was based on #2. I forgot about that:blush: That’s true…! Thank you for posting that.

 

[Suat]

1. HPV has hundreds of different “strands”… kind of like the flu virus. From what I have read, the vaccine only protects against 3 of these strands.

Actually it is 4, but those four are the cause of 70% of the cases of cervical cancer and 90% of the cases of genital warts (according to the CDC). Facts are cool.

 

[boppaid]

1. HPV has hundreds of different “strands”… kind of like the flu virus. From what I have read, the vaccine only protects against 3 of these strands.

I believe,t hough, that these 3 strands are the ones most commonly associated with cervical cancer.

I, personally, would get it if I were a single young woman. I also plan to get it for my pre-teen daughter. She doesn’t need to know it is for an STD. But, it will protect her should she ever have sex at a too=young age or have sex as an adult woman with a man who is not a virgin.

 

[scott1228]

My wife has cervical cancer.

Get the vacccine. You have a duty to maintain your health, so you can perform your duties. The vaccine prevents most forms of cervical cancer. HPV causes most cases of cervical cancer, and can be spread even without full intercourse.

Do yourself, your future husband, your children and your grandchildren a favor.

 

[whatevergirl]

My wife has cervical cancer.

Get the vacccine. You have a duty to maintain your health, so you can perform your duties. The vaccine prevents most forms of cervical cancer. HPV causes most cases of cervical cancer, and can be spread even without full intercourse.

Do yourself, your future husband, your children and your grandchildren a favor.

I’m so sorry to hear this, scott. I will keep you and your family in my prayers.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

I believe,t hough, that these 3 strands are the ones most commonly associated with cervical cancer.

I, personally, would get it if I were a single young woman. I also plan to get it for my pre-teen daughter. **She doesn’t need to know it is for an STD. **But, it will protect her should she ever have sex at a too=young age or have sex as an adult woman with a man who is not a virgin.

See this is what I disagree with. I would be pretty ticked off if my mom took me to get a vaccine and didn’t tell me what it was for, and then I find out it’s for an STD. Your daughter is old enough to deside for herself. I personally am not getting it because I am a virgin, and will remain so. However, I may change my mind at some point. It isn’t about the vaccine, it’s about choice. I’ve made mine. You should give your daughter the respect to make hers.

 

[nova147]

Since you do not have a specific person in mind whom you are planning to marry, I don’t think this is a trust issue. This is an issue about what the man you may marry in the future may or may not have done before you get married. If you were in a serious relationship now and your BF was a virgin, it might be different. But since you don’t know the man you’re talking about, it isn’t about trust. You may well marry a man who tells you, honestly, that he had several sexual partners. In that case, getting the vaccine would protect you.

Now, there may be other reasons you wish to avoid the vaccine, but from what you posted, I see no moral dilema.

MJ

 

[LilyM]

Here in Australia there’s a new vaccine available called Cervarix (which I’m currently getting, as I already have HPV), which is suitable for over 26-ers.

It’s due to be approved in the next year or two in the US. So there’s no need to get the Gardasil right now.

 

[Rebelecka]

What’s bothering me about this thread is that if a person has “even one” (other) sexual partner, the woman is then, without a doubt, going to get cervical cancer. Maybe I’m too old these days to understand this but are we saying that almost everybody who is sexually active has HPV? And since you can (apparently) get it without full intercourse, well, I guess everyone must get that vaccine because otherwise every woman in the world is going to get cancer.

Maybe I’m so far behind the times that I’m lost, but that just doesn’t seem correct to me. It reminds me of all the people predicting a mega-flu pandemic with great angst…and it hasn’t happened yet.

 

[StratusRose]

Actually it is 4, but those four are the cause of 70% of the cases of cervical cancer and 90% of the cases of genital warts (according to the CDC). Facts are cool.

So is common sense. Which brings me back to my point that the vaccine harbors a false sense of security. It may protect against 70% but what about the other 30%?

 

[lawlerml]

I understand the concerns presented here. What is important to remember are these points:
1.Vaccines are given for prevention and what better time to prevent disease than PRIOR to an exposure.
2.You should try to remove the mode of transmission from your decision and treat it similar to any other vaccine. Cervical cancer is an aweful disease; why not limit your chances of developing the disease? Also, Cervical displasia can present a lifetime of doctor’s visits, procedures, and much discomfort.
3.If there was a vaccine for breast cancer, the manufacturers would have to open plants in every state just to keep up with the demand.
4. Our sexuality is an incredible gift and one that should be reverenced in every way possible. This is one way to reverence the gift. Protect it.

 

[Just_wondering]

I just checked it out on wikipedia, which is by no means reliable, but they do list their sources, so they may be accurate. According to them,

The study found that, during 2003–2004, at any given time, 26.8% of women aged 14 to 59 were infected with at least one type of HPV. Of the four types prevented by the Gardasil vaccine, however, only 3.4% were infected.

So you’re not really protecting yourself against much. Then again, cervical cancer is a pretty bitter pill to swallow if you could have prevented it but didn’t.

Another couple of stats I found interesting:

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), by the age of 50 more than 80% of American women will have contracted at least one strain of genital HPV. … About 14,000 women in the United States are diagnosed with cervical cancer disease each year, and more than 3,900 women die in the United States each year from this disease.

The HPV vaccine, Gardasil, protects against the two strains of HPV that cause 70% of cervical cancer cases, and two strains of HPV that cause 90% of genital warts.

I’d probably get the vaccine. Yes, it is protecting against an STD, but all it takes is for either you or your spouse to have made one mistake in the past… It’s better to be safe than sorry.

 

[HouseArrest]

I guess I don’t understand HPV either. If a man carries it, is there nothing he can do about it?

 

[Just_wondering]

I guess I don’t understand HPV either. If a man carries it, is there nothing he can do about it?

If I recall science class correctly, viruses are incurable. They’re preventable, but once you have them, you have them for life.

HPV (but a different strain of it) causes warts. Once you get warts, the virus will stay in your blood forever. Even if you don’t show any symptoms, the virus is in your blood. Any transfer of fluid can pass on the virus to another person.

 

[whatevergirl]

I understand the reasoning behind someone getting the vaccination in adult years, even if she plans to live a chaste life up until marriage, because one’s spouse might pass it to her during the marriage, from a sexual past that he had. (It’s passed the majority of the time through sexual contact) But, a spouse could also have HIV, and other diseases–should we use condoms? I mean…if a person leads a chaste life, he/she could marry someone who didn’t…and could be open to many diseases, but we as Catholics don’t believe in contraception in any form, or using condoms. So, it’s a strange thing, this HPV vaccine, because it presents a moral question when it comes to looking at other diseases as well. I thought about that last night, reading this thread.

Just my ramblings!

 

[Suat]

So is common sense.

Many people seem to be lacking common sense these days, should I expect the same with facts?

Which brings me back to my point that the vaccine harbors a false sense of security. It may protect against 70% but what about the other 30%?

Well, obviously if it ‘only’ protects against 70% then it does not protect against the other 30%. What I took issue with is how you focused on the ‘negative’ part of the vaccine (only protects against X of Y strains) while ignoring the ‘positive’ part (those strains cause 70% of cervical cancers). Instead of harboring a false sense of security, your post gave the false sense of futility. That is quite disingenuous. Since the vaccine is not mandated, people are free to choose either way. Why not accurately present both the pros and cons?