Some Parents Would Rather Their Children Die of Cancer Than Have Sex?


Hmmm. Do you really think that's their rationale? I don't. I think they're just engaging in the thought process that certain religions have promoted for thousands of years.

It's one thing to state that that's the practical effect of such thinking, but another to ascribe that as the reasoning behind their thinking. It doesn't do anything to contradict the prevailing cultural norms governing the issue of teenage sex. So I guess you're doing it to make yourself feel morally superior. Which is undercut by the false ascription you do. THAT is weird.
Honor killings, only legal.
I'm not really sure what the point of this study was, anyway. The results were completely obvious beforehand and it's unlikely to change the thought process that, as commentator #1 pointed out, "certain religions have promoted for thousands of years."

Sometimes I'm not sure decisions like these should be left to the population to "decide" about given the potential to save lives if vaccination was mandatory. The quadrivalent HPV vaccine is incredibly effective in preventing HPV-related cervical, vaginal, and anal carcinomas.
Is this sentiment different than that behind honor killings? Parents' pride > children's health.
HPV vaccines: one of those weird nexus where nut-job, home schoolin' evangelists are on the same page as nanny-liberal, "big-pharma wants your kid to be autistic" conspiracy theory wackdoodles" are on the same page.
So all of us women born before this vaccine was given to babies are going to die of cancer?

(And please don't tell me that grown, sexually active women should get the vaccine, too. Except for the one lunatic doctor I went to who tried to give me the vaccine—along with propaganda pamphlets on abortion and birth control—100% of doctors I've asked about this say NO.)
Yes, you need to get your HPV Gardasil shot. How else is Merck going to make up the billion dollars they paid out after pleading guilty to criminal charges over the marketing and sales of the painkiller Vioxx, and the $4.85 billion to settle 27,000 lawsuits by people who had claimed they or their relatives had suffered injury or death after taking the drug?
Yeah, but Freedom and Jeesus and stuff.
No mention of the homophobia involved in the fact that the HPV vaccine STILL isn't recommended for boys (or covered by insurance for such), even though it is shown to prevent oral and anal cancers from HPV?
@7- It's not given to babies. And without this shot you've increased your risk of cancer. There are no individual guaranties, just a change in probability. For the whole population there is a guaranty: The fewer people who get vaccinated, the more people will die early.

@8- Well, they'll raise prices on all the other shit they produce and we'll all pay it because there's no cost control on pharmaceuticals.
While I'm the last one to trust big pharma, why so much skepticism over a vaccine that has proven efficacy? HPV does account for the majority of cases of cervical cancer and is a growing cause of head and neck cancer. Sure, a company will be making a profit on one of their products, but the product will improve health outcomes for the population in general and potentially save money as a tool for primary prevention.

Regarding the comment by Mittens, this is still up in the air. There was a reputable study in the New England Journal of Medicine that looked at giving the vaccine to women who had HPV-related premalignant lesions. The vaccine resulted in a remission rate of ~30%, which was higher than the spontaneous remission rate of ~2%. I think this was interesting because it contrasts with our conception of when vaccines are effective (ie. before infection) but I think it remains to be studied.
@1, I don't need to think it's their rationale, I've had it explained to me, by them, as the reason they oppose the vaccine.

@7, how many doctors have you asked? What were they practicing in?
@ 13, every single parent who doesn't want their girls having teenage sex feels this way? Every single one?

I'm aware that some are nutty enough to think this way. They're the same parents who would disown their gay sons. But that doesn't make it something common to all sex-phobic parents.
@ 10,

Where I am it is recommended for both genders and my insurance covered both my daughter's and son's immunization.
@10 It has nothing to do with homophobia. Sample sizes for randomized controlled trials are based on how many cases are needed in order to have statistically meaningful results. Since cervical cancer is much more common -- and sexually active heterosexual women are also more common -- it was more cost-effective for companies to get the drug approved for women first and then expand it to men later on.
@7 - Can you elaborate on why they said no? And why you don't want it?

The only rationale I've heard for not being vaccinated is because they assume that sexually active women over a certain age have already been exposed and/or have a strain of HPV. So as a general policy, it's not recommended as a cost-saving measure. Much like when you ask to be screened for STIs they usually only test for chlamydia and gonorrhea and HIV, rather than ALL of them, because as a straight woman, those are the most likely. Since I don't like to base my health decisions on "probably", I felt that it was a shitty rationale.
People who can't accept the fact that their infants will one day grow into adult people with lives and whatnot of their own have no business having children in the first place.
@7: They don't give the shot to babies, they give it to younger teenage girls.