Would you give your adolescent girls an STD vaccine?

[Fashina86]

turboEDvo:

Just to keep facts straight, it would require a person drinking about 1 litre of saliva infected with HIV for them to contract it.

I don’t know a whole ton about this vaccine, but I figure if it was found to be safe, I don’t see the problem. Though I am lucky to have a gf who I know to be chaste (and who will remain so as I will until marriage) many people do not. The issue of teenage sex is one that needs to be attacked on all fronts. If we have a safe vaccine that will stop kids from contracting the disease, well, give it to them. At the same time, teach them that sex before marriage is wrong. We can have it both ways. I look at the vaccine as a preventative measure to be taken along with other methods of educating people about the harms of pre-marital sex and having multiple partners.

Eamon

Eamon,
Good points, but would that not encourage promescuity through the knowledge of having been vaccinated? I agree that they should be taught about the harms and sinfulness of pre-marital sex and certainyly wouldn’t do any of it myself, but letting the teenagers know that there is a possibility that there won’t be any reprocussions for their actions, seems to be giving them a loaded weapon to play with. I agree about needing the protection, but if they didnt’ do it to begin with, then they wouldn’t have the problem… whatever…

Laura
(I don’t mean to completely pick apart your arguement… I swear I am not pickign only on you… but yours was the best to answer to…)

 

[leaner]

Fashina86:

Eamon,
but if they didnt’ do it to begin with, then they wouldn’t have the problem… whatever…

Therein lies the biggest issue here (aside from vaccine safety) – HPV is not a result of ONLY “doing it to begin with” – even the most chaste among us could catch it as a candy striper at the hospital, as a wife to a man who has had other partners, as a nurse, etc etc. and on and on…if it were STRICTLY a result of irresponsible behavior, then these arguments would hold up, but since it can be caught so many ways (many of which reflect NOTHING on a person’s moral character) I don’t think that belongs as a part of this discussion

The decision to vaccinate is not about “will I then make her more apt to have sex??” – it’s about “is the vaccine safe, and should I get it for my daughter, what are her risks of contracting it?”

 

[Fashina86]

leaner:

Fashina86:

Eamon,
but if they didnt’ do it to begin with, then they wouldn’t have the problem… whatever…

Therein lies the biggest issue here (aside from vaccine safety) – HPV is not a result of ONLY “doing it to begin with” – even the most chaste among us could catch it as a candy striper at the hospital, as a wife to a man who has had other partners, as a nurse, etc etc. and on and on…if it were STRICTLY a result of irresponsible behavior, then these arguments would hold up, but since it can be caught so many ways (many of which reflect NOTHING on a person’s moral character) I don’t think that belongs as a part of this discussion

The decision to vaccinate is not about “will I then make her more apt to have sex??” – it’s about “is the vaccine safe, and should I get it for my daughter, what are her risks of contracting it?”

oh… okay… so then how exactly do you get HPV outside of sex… I mean how is it also transmitted?.. I am confuesed…
Laura

 

[turboEDvo]

Fashina86:

Eamon,
Good points, but would that not encourage promescuity through the knowledge of having been vaccinated? … but letting the teenagers know that there is a possibility that there won’t be any reprocussions for their actions, seems to be giving them a loaded weapon to play with. I agree about needing the protection, but if they didnt’ do it to begin with, then they wouldn’t have the problem… whatever…

If I said that we should not teach people to wear seatbelts while driving because not having the extra layer of protection will make them better drivers, most people would laugh at me.

My argument is similar to argument that would be used against the above: those that are going to drive dangerously will do so regardless of certain levels of protection, while those that drive safe will do so either way and appreciate the extra safety from the seatbelt that could help save them if somebody else crashes into them (and I can personally atest to both of those points).

In this case, sex is the car and the vaccine is the seatbelt. Those that learn that sex is not for use before marriage will benefit from the extra protect from HPV if (unfortunately) their future spouse did not practice chastity before marriage while those that will have sex regardless of the levels of protection in place will pose a lower risk of harming others with their actions.

And really, sex (regardless of the vaccine) is a “loaded weapon” of sorts to all teenagers, regardless of who they are. It is a powerful tool that has proper uses and can cause disaster if used incorrectly or irresponsibly. Teens can either learn to treat it with respect or they screw up and chance the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.

As was stated above, the threat of STDs has not been shown to be a significant deterent to pre-marital sexual activity. Thus, decreasing the likelihood of contracting an STD would not increase (at least significantly in either direction) the likelihood that the receiving party would have pre-marital sex. It does, however, prevent their future spouse (or other partners) from suffering from the fallout.

The other issue is that if I were to approve this for any child of mine in the future, I would make sure that they understood that the vaccine was for the purpose of protecting them from factors out of their control. They would also learn the different between that and repricussions for their actions. Even with the vaccine, sex can get somebody pregnant before they are done with school, married, properly prepared to raise children. The repricussion of having a child is unfair to the child as well as the parent, while and STD only affects the one person (unless they give it to others).

Admittedly, anyone who gives this vaccine to a child and does not teach them that instituting a preventative measure does not give them the right to extend certain boundaries (such as permitting premarital) is doing a disservice to that child. That does not negate the good that can be had if the vaccine is properly used in conjuntion with proper education of the receiving child (or any child for that matter).

Eamon

 

[cheddarsox]

Eamon, bless you for that lovely post!

cheddar

 

[Anglican77]

cheddarsox:

Eamon, bless you for that lovely post!

cheddar

I second that!!!

 

[JessHav]

wow! thanks everyone for the great discussion. Would you mind if I added a poll to this thread or another where I can get some numbers on how many would vaccinate?

yesterday I thought that I would vaccinate my DD but now I think that I wouldn’t, or at least not until it’s been proven safe. I agree with some of the other posts that the medical industry isn’t necessarily in it to protect women’s reproductive health (look at the Pill and Depo-Provera, which are “safe”) and I cringe to think what could happen to the “guinea pig” young girls who get this vaccine first. Vaccinating such a large group could be disastrous if the vaccine isn’t all it is cracked up to be.

if i did vaccinate my DD, I agree with other posters that she would not know about it until she was older. (someone in my group brought up the scenario about what if you didn’t vaccinate your daughter, she got cervical cancer (made some mistakes) and then blames you because you could have done something to help her??)
I would do this because I don’t know the spouse that she will marry and I don’t want her to pay for his mistakes. Also, I can’t guarantee that she won’t be exposed (hey we ALL make mistakes, right) because of her own behavior and I would hate to watch her die of something I could have prevented. It’s a very hard choice, though.
If anyone else has comments, I’ll be using these opinions until monday…keep em coming!

Thanks again!
Jess

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

turboEDvo:

My argument is similar to argument that would be used against the above: those that are going to drive dangerously will do so regardless of certain levels of protection, while those that drive safe will do so either way and appreciate the extra safety from the seatbelt that could help save them if somebody else crashes into them (and I can personally atest to both of those points).

Eamon,

---

I see your point and agree except for 1 area. I think giving the vaccine to 10 year olds is like insisting on a seatbelt for people who aren’t even in the car.

---

I think it would be better to wait and see if they are going to get in the car.

---

**Wait until they can choose for themselves if they are even going to be sexually active, **choosing a career or other situation putting them at higher risk of infection.

---

Just like cars. If you get in a car - you where a seatbelt. If you don’t - you don’t need it.

---

Giving a 10 year old this vaccine just doesn’t make sense to me and that’s what bothers me most.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

JessHav:

if i did vaccinate my DD, I agree with other posters that she would not know about it until she was older. (someone in my group brought up the scenario about what if you didn’t vaccinate your daughter, she got cervical cancer (made some mistakes) and then blames you because you could have done something to help her??)
I would do this because I don’t know the spouse that she will marry and I don’t want her to pay for his mistakes. Also, I can’t guarantee that she won’t be exposed (hey we ALL make mistakes, right) because of her own behavior and I would hate to watch her die of something I could have prevented. It’s a very hard choice, though.

If for some reason I could be convinced to give this to my 10 yr old dd - I would be honest with her. I see no benefit to lying about it. If a teen is going to go have sex, I really doubt they are waiting until they know they’ve had a cervical cancer vaccine first. I wouldn’t see a need to lie to them about their medical healthcare and would not want to foster distrust.

---

Jess, you should know that the number of women in the U.S. who die of cervical cancer is extremely low because cervical cancer is 100% curable unless left untreated until in the late stages. If my dd died of cervical cancer, I would be more angry that she didn’t get basic healthcare checkups, than that she didn’t get a shot when she was 10 year old.

 

[turboEDvo]

Eamon,

I see your point and agree except for 1 area. I think giving the vaccine to 10 year olds is like insisting on a seatbelt for people who aren’t even in the car.

I think it would be better to wait and see if they are going to get in the car.

**Wait until they can choose for themselves if they are even going to be sexually active, **choosing a career or other situation putting them at higher risk of infection.

Just like cars. If you get in a car - you where a seatbelt. If you don’t - you don’t need it.

Giving a 10 year old this vaccine just doesn’t make sense to me and that’s what bothers me most.

That’s a legitimate sentiment. I just think that if it were proven safe, I would be more likely to support it for any of my children.

Whether or not to get the vaccine is your choice as a parent and I’m not arguing that. I’m just making one side of the argument. The only real issue is that it is only effective in puberty. Ideally, we would find a vaccine that could be used later in life and still be effective.

Eamon

 

[astegallrnc]

**

Jess, you should know that the number of women in the U.S. who die of cervical cancer is extremely low because cervical cancer is 100% curable unless left untreated until in the late stages. If my dd died of cervical cancer, I would be more angry that she didn’t get basic healthcare checkups, than that she didn’t get a shot when she was 10 year old.

The public health concern is not simply cervical cancer, but also abnormal paps. For example, abnormal paps that are low grade lesions are caused by HPV 83% of the time. One should consider the LGSIL (low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, HGSIL, etc.). You also have to consider the treatment for those abnormals and the risks associated with treatment.

but would that not encourage promescuity through the knowledge of having been vaccinated?

I agree with Eamon 110%. I will share this from my experience working with teens. STDs and unplanned pregnancy DO NOT discourage sexual activity. It is plain and simple. I can’t count the number of females I have counseled re:STDs only to have them return with a STD. I am certain that many parents would be shocked to KNOW what I have learned re: teens.

how exactly do you get HPV outside of sex… I mean how is it also transmitted?..

HPV is transmitted from skin to skin contact. There are about 120 identified strains of the virus. This is the same virus that causes plain old warts (a different strain); however, only about 30 infect the genitals. Gential HPV can be spread NONSEXUALLY (though this is debated) but exactly how isn’t known.
**

 

[leaner]

Martha – I agree with you for the most part, except that doesn’t allow for the fact that she may choose a partner who is infected, kwim? He might not even know he’s infected – HPV can lie dormant for years before actually “erupting”, for lack of a better way to say it. So even if he led a life of sex and debauchery or had one partner before her she could still get it regardless of her own personal choices in life – that’s the reason I’d do it…but again, safety and the FDA don’t exactly go hand in hand…so I think I’d give it a good 10-15yrs before I’d trust it (and even then…)

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

leaner:

Martha – I agree with you for the most part, except that doesn’t allow for the fact that she may choose a partner who is infected, kwim?

Sure it does. If she reaches a point of knowing she may be interested in having sexual activity or even just adulthood - she can get the shot then. Lots of people go to their dr. for regular check ups and it could be mentioned then that this option is available to her, just like rubella boosters and HIV testing is mentioned now. Or just like it would be mentioned to parents that it is an option for them to consider for their 10 yr old.

---

** **astegallrncQUOTE]The public health concern is not simply cervical cancer, but also abnormal paps. For example, abnormal paps that are low grade lesions are caused by HPV 83% of the time. One should consider the LGSIL (low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, HGSIL, etc.). You also have to consider the treatment for those abnormals and the risks associated with treatment.

---

**Man, you used my purple… **
Anyhoo.
Don’t know about that side of the issue. Is it really neccessary to make vaccines for non-life threatening conditions? Is it the most responsible way to treat those conditions? Would you classify cervical dysplasia in the category of “abnormals” or is that really just the same thing? Also, many abnormals turn out to be nothing. Treatment is usually pretty low risk and easy isn’t it? hmmm, It’s all in the little details isn’t it?..

---

****astegallrncQUOTE]I agree with Eamon 110%. I will share this from my experience working with teens. STDs and unplanned pregnancy DO NOT discourage sexual activity.

---

**Oh, I agree with that completely too! Like I posted before, it’s that age old invincibility factor. “It won’t happen to me.” **

---

****astegallrncQUOTE]HPV is transmitted from skin to skin contact. … Gential HPV can be spread NONSEXUALLY (though this is debated) but exactly how isn’t known.

---

Well, there’s something to think on. HPV is a skin to skin virus, but the HPV we are discussing apparently targets the genitals - yet it is possible it can be spread non-sexually too. So. A person doing … less than actual intercourse, but yet being … intimate in some other manners … could still contact genital HPV. Have I got this down so far?

---

The next question is if it could be contacted (or avoided) through hygene issues? For example, sharing bathing suits or bedding?

---

**ewww, maybe everyone should just get the shot so they don’t have to freak out thnking aobut this kind of stuff?! **

 

[leaner]

**However, (here’s the catch) it must be administered to MOST females (so that noone will contract and carry this disease) by puberty. That’s right, it must be given as a shot to almost all young women before the age of 10 or so. **

(I used red, 'k? )

---

---

Ok, for some reason I can’t get it to “unbold” now…I’m not screaming or anything…lol – I was under the understanding that for it to be effective, it had to be given before puberty for some reason – if that reason is simply b/c it’s “before girls would be having sex” then ok, sure wait until later, but if it’s b/c that’s when it’s vital for the antibodies to be developed (or something smarter than I can understand - but scientific, not “b/c it’s earlier than the first sexual experience”) – then that’s when I’d say “yep, get it” – hope I explained that ok…can’t figure ot exactly how to put it, kwim?

 

[astegallrnc]

Martha, I was hoping you wouldn’t notice I borrowed the purple. It is my favorite color though. :yup:

**
Is it really neccessary to make vaccines for non-life threatening conditions? Is it the most responsible way to treat those conditions?

Ok, you can have your purple back.

Public health focuses on disease prevention and health promotion. There is also the issue of cost-effectiveness. So, will this vaccine prevent disease? Promote health? Is it cost-effective?

I respect and see your perspective. My perspective as a health care provider:
~“Approximately 20 million people are currently infected with HPV. At least 50 percent of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives. By age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have acquired genital HPV infection. About 6.2 million Americans get a new genital HPV infection each year.”
~I remember the faces of those abnormal paps I followed up and managed
~Approximately 3.5 million (7% of pap smears) are diagnosed with a abnormality requiring additional follow-up or evaluation
~Every year, between 250,000 and 1 million women in the United States are diagnosed with cervical dysplasia
~I think of the 10,000 women who died from cervical cancer
~High-risk HPV causes 99% of cervical cancers
~HPV is spread by skin to skin contact and possible other means too

If a vaccine can eliminate 10000 cervical cancer deaths and abnormal paps, is it worth it?

**

Would you classify cervical dysplasia in the category of “abnormals” or is that really just the same thing?

**

Yes, cervical dyspalsia is the growth of abnormal cells on the cervix. It is considered a precancerous lesion. ASC-US (atypical squamous cells of unknow significance), ASC–H(atypical squamous cells cannot exclude a high-grade [squamous intraepithelial lesion](http://www.cancer.gov/Common/PopUps/popDefinition.aspx?term=squamous intraepithelial lesion&version=Patient&language=English)), LGSIL, or HGSIL) are all abnormals.

---

**

Also, many abnormals turn out to be nothing. Treatment is usually pretty low risk and easy isn’t it? hmmm, It’s all in the little details isn’t it?..

**

It depends on the pap abnormality and population. In general, it is true that a small percentage of the 5-10% of abnormal paps indicate changes that may progress to cervical cancer.

The risk and ease of treatment depends on the method. I won’t go into the risks, but there are risks with any treatment. Is the risk of HPV and/or treatment greater than the risk of the (potential) HPV vaccine? For me, it depends on the safety of the vaccine.

****QUOTE]
A person doing … less than actual intercourse, but yet being … intimate in some other manners … could still contact genital HPV. Have I got this down so far?

Yes, you’ve got it. Genital contact (hand-to-genital, genital-to-gential without intercourse, etc.) can spread HPV. Intercourse does not have to take place. It is even possible to become infected without genital contact, but this is a debated topic.

So many details to consider. **

 

[Fashina86]

I am so very confused… maybe it is just because I got back from a debate tournament… but I am lost… So… if i am getting this correct… HPV can be spread with a simple shake of a hand? And they are making this vaccine for whom? and so, is this a permanent (w/o a cure) disease? I am so confused… and still don’t really know if letting young people have the vaccine is really right or good… If HPV cannot be transmitted hand to hand like in a handshake… isn’t it jsut encouraging? Please don’t think I haven’t been reading… but I am lost (okay, I guess I need to sleep on it and think…) AHHHH… I will get back tomorrow… I am off to bed… too tired… Debate really drains the mind!

Laura :yawn:

 

[pira114]

If there is a vaccine to protect your children, you should get it. The term STD is kind of misleading. You can get these diseases many different ways. In hospitals for example. Resturaunts also. Just because your children are not having sex, does not mean that they will not get one of these diseases.

In my opinion it’s irresponsible as a parent to not get a vaccine if it’s safe to do so.

 

[Forest-Pine]

I am all for vaccines. I believe it is important to have near universal compliance for vaccines (though voluntary). It is clear what the effect is when pockets of people opt out of vaccinations. (For instance, the Amish recently made headlines for a polio outbreak.) Such people who voluntarilly opt out of the vaccine who then willingly or unknowingly place themselves at risk of contraction, also place at risk those in our society who are unable to have the vaccine for whatever reason. However, there is also a certain amount of personal responsibility that comes with deciding to not vaccinate.

Chickenpox is a highly debated vaccination. The bigger health concern than some 6 year olds getting chickenpox (like most of us did) is the infants who die every year from it, as well as the adults. Not to mention the re-emergence of the chickenpox virus in later years in the form of shingles. (Though, scientists now believe that a regular re-introduction of the chickenpox vaccine will keep it properly subdued throughout life. They use the theory to suggest that the elderly should receive chickenpox vaccines, too. I see it as another proof that the traditional family model is best for all involved.)

However, our society has become one of convenience. Most people have no clue about the chickenpox mortality rate or the connection to shingles. Most people want the chickenpox vaccine because taking care of a sick child is an inconvenience. The biggest marketing tactics were not about health and lives, but about how much MONEY it costs employers, schools, parents, day cares, etc to care for children with chickenpox.

What it sounds like to me, this conversation is going the same way. It is an inconvenience to doctors to screen for abnormal paps. It is an inconvenience for people to have a single partner (how else are they getting re-infected so much?) It is an inconvenince (and therefore, costing us money) to treat this rather benign problem in the grand scheme of STDs.

1. HPV is contracted through sexual contact. (Some debate if it can be contracted through non-sexual contract, but IF that is even possible is up in the air.)
2. If contracted, it usually does not lead to a noticeable infection.
3. There are treatments to keep the infection in check if it does happen.
4. Most people will heal themselves of the virus.
5. The virus is the almost sole cause of cervical cancer.
6. Cervical cancers is one of the “safest” cancers to contract. It is routinely and easily tested for, and also (relatively) easily cured.
7. If a future partner who once lived immorally but now is on the straight and narrow contracted HPV, it is most likely that he would not have warts. If he did, it would be treatable. Through regulating intercourse to times when the warts were not active, the possibility of passing it on to a spouse would be minimal. If it was passed, both would most likely heal themselves, and could also rely on current medication.
8. Vaccinations are known to have severe reactions in children for various reasons (such as allergies to eggs). It is also debated if other problems such as autism (almost nonexistant in the non-vaccinated world) are linked to vaccinations.
9. The health care industry is a business in it for money and has a clear pattern of unethical behaviour in the recent past.
10. I would not, at this time, consider vaccinating a child with this vaccine.

It seems unclear again in this thread if the shot is only effective in puberty. It is effective against the virus and the age of the recipient is not a factor. The age reflects the demographics in our country and how young children are having sex on average. The people in some office building ran the numbers six ways from Sunday (age 7, age 8, age 9, age 20, etc) and determined the best age-to-effectiveness ratio. It is a policy of numbers promulgated under “the greatest good for the greatest numbers.” (Isn’t that the same theory that China uses for its forced abortions and sterilizations?) I am happy to say that my family (and I would safely assume most on this board’s) do not fit into the average mold concerning the issue of pre-puberty sex.

I don’t have a problem with them making it. It reflects the concerns and current status of our society. It is a society that I am happy to seperate myself from.

 

[astegallrnc]

Fashina86:

I am so very confused… maybe it is just because I got back from a debate tournament… but I am lost… So… if i am getting this correct… HPV can be spread with a simple shake of a hand? And they are making this vaccine for whom? and so, is this a permanent (w/o a cure) disease? I am so confused… and still don’t really know if letting young people have the vaccine is really right or good… If HPV cannot be transmitted hand to hand like in a handshake… isn’t it jsut encouraging? Please don’t think I haven’t been reading… but I am lost (okay, I guess I need to sleep on it and think…) AHHHH… I will get back tomorrow… I am off to bed… too tired… Debate really drains the mind!

Laura :yawn:

For the genitals to become infected with HPV it must be one of the 30 or so strains that infect the genitals. So, if you meet someone with a wart on the finger, shake their hand, and then use the restroom… you are not going to contract genital HPV. All the routes of genital HPV are unknown at this time, but it is known that genital HPV is sexually transmitted.

If HPV cannot be transmitted hand to hand like in a handshake… isn’t it jsut encouraging?

Encouraging what? Sexual activity? The risk of STDs does not discourage sexual activity based on the statistics and my experience working in a clinic. Consider the stats on sexually active teens and the numbers practicing “safer sex”. STDs don’t discourage teens or adults, so I speculate the vaccine would not encourage sexual activity.

It is an inconvenience to doctors to screen for abnormal paps.

Yes, it costs money. BUT, I don’t think any doctor considers it an inconvenience to perform a pap. In fact, that was my profession (NP not a doc), so my job depended on the need for paps. This is also an important function of gynecologists.

It is an inconvenience for people to have a single partner (how else are they getting re-infected so much?)

How do you know anyone is getting reinfected?

What does my positive HPV test mean for my partner?
Most sexually active couples share HPV until the immune response eliminates the infection. Partners who are sexually intimate only with each other are not likely to pass the same virus back and forth. When HPV infection goes away the immune system will remember that HPV type and keep a new infection of the same HPV type from occurring again. However, because there are many different types of HPV, becoming immune to one HPV type may not protect you from getting HPV again if exposed to another HPV type.
If a future partner who once lived immorally but now is on the straight and narrow contracted HPV, it is most likely that he would not have warts. If he did, it would be treatable. Through regulating intercourse to times when the warts were not active, the possibility of passing it on to a spouse would be minimal. If it was passed, both would most likely heal themselves, and could also rely on current medication.

You are talking about genital warts caused by genital HPV, which are most commonly caused by strains 6 & 11. This vaccine is to prevent infection with the strains (16 & 18) most commonly associated with cervical abnormalities/cancer.

It is true that one should avoid intercourse if genital warts are present, “but removing warts cannot guarantee that the risk of transmission is removed”. IT IS passed when the warts are not present. According to the CDC, “most infected persons are unaware they are infected, yet they can transmit the virus to a sex partner”. Regarding genital HPV strains 16 & 18 (most commonly associated with cervical abnormalities), a woman doesn’t know she is infected until she has an abnormal pap or tests positive. Men can not, at this time, be tested for strains 16 or 18.

It is an inconvenince (and therefore, costing us money) to treat this rather benign problem in the grand scheme of STDs.

Well, most women who have been treated for abnormal pap would agree. Many would prefer a vaccine over genital HPV infection. Yes, it costs money. It costs tax payers, insurance companies, and those seeking treatment money. Hmmmm… interesting perspective that this is a “rather benign problem in the grand scheme of STDs”.

 

[astegallrnc]

Forest-Pine:

It is an inconvenience to doctors to screen for abnormal paps.

I hope my posts didn’t give this impression. That was not my intent. When I referred to the number of abnormal paps and cervical cancer, I was thinking in terms of the impact on women not inconvenience. Health care providers care (hopefully) about those they provide services to and would like to see disease eliminated. It is tough, heartbreaking, to diagnose anyone with an abnormality. I assure you it is not an inconvenience to do a pap, and the convenience or inconveniece of screening for cervical cell abnomalities is not an influence in the development of the vaccine. Also, this vaccine would not eliminate the need for paps in all women.

Autumn