Girls of 12 will be offered vaccine to fight sex disease

[AB Asks]

Girls aged between 12 and 13 will be offered a jab to beat cervical cancer. The �100m scheme has been approved by ministers. The jab will protect against the sexually transmitted human papilloma virus which can trigger cervical cancer later in life. Around 1,000 people die from this cancer each year and experts believe with this jab 700 of them will be saved. The jab must be given before puberty to be the most effective. There are concerns the jab could encourage underage sex as girls may think they are protected against other STIs. What do you think? Could this jab encourage promiscuity? Or is it a great medical achievement that will save women for generations to come?

[NJOK]

Here we go...

[jake-the-peg]

And seat belts promote bad driving,

The fire brigade promotes arson.

3,000 women a year die from this in the UK .

Do you want to go ask their famillies what they think?

Does this really warrent a question? Would you want to deny your daughter an innoculaton that might save her life?

[Reverandfunk]

If someone that age wants to have sex they will anyway.

If this jab reduces the risk of cancer in later life it should be compulsory.

[andy-hughes]

I cannot for the life of me see where an argument that this treatment equates with a lisence for promiscuity even begins.

Under-age girls have sex because they are lacking in basic affection, feelings of value, and someone to talk to about their lives and feelings - not because they have an injection!

It's really not difficult is it?

[youngmafbog]

I'm not sure we really know why underage girls or boys for that matter engage in sexual activity. However putting people at risk just on the offchance that the innoculation will encourage promiscuity is nuts.
Education is probably the answer but thats a whole new question and debate!

[netibiza]

My 21yr old daughter now has this cancer, I wish this jab had been around earlier. Don't knock it, it does not promote underage sex, but protects. I would just tell my child that it would protect against warts, no need to tell them the rest. What 12yr old knows about these warts anyway . "Oh good, I've been injected against warts, therefore I can have sex after I've played with Barbie?" I'veonly just found out about them - why didn't we have them in the 60's? We were all promiscuous then? (if you listen the media)

[suffragette]

I find it strange that AB would ask a question about such an important matter as cervical cancer in such an offensive and blatently provocative manner. The headline for this question is reminiscent of Kelvin MacKenzie's, 'The Sun', during the 80's. How dare you describe cervical cancer as a 'sex disease' in your headline, only to backtrack rapidly in the actual question. I certainly find this tabloid approach offensive. Your editorial questions regularly fail to interest ABers, but resorting to such a scandalous approach is an insult to any ABers who have family members suffering from this illness. Shame on the editor!!

[andy-hughes]

As I understand it, a 'sex disease' is exactly what papilloma is - it's a sexually transmitted condition.

OK, the 'shorthand' expression may be a little abrupt, but it is the virus, not the resulting cancer that the inoculation prevents.

The question does not say, or infer that cervical cancer is a sexually transmitted disease - and even it it were, that does not make it ineherntly less of a tragedy than any other form of cancer.

Sexual activity is simply the conduit by which this virus spreads - it in no way infers that anyone becoming infected has somehow received some kind of just deserts for deviant behaviour.

I think the Ed. is, as usual, looking to promote thoughtful debate, and would never knowingly wish to offend any section of the AB family - and I don't think offence has been caused here, judging by netibiza (a long term AB'er)'s response.

[netibiza]

I personally cannot see anything offensive about this question.

[sandbach99]

I read an article, can't remember where, the article was about a family being torn apart because the mother of a young girl was adament her daughter was to have the jab, the father was equally determined she was not to have it as it would encourage the daughter to have sex.


It seems to be mans' reasoning, they don't like the idea of their daughter growing up and in their stupid minds think that if the girl doesn't have the jab she will forever remain their little girl.

Whilst the Falklands war was on I was in Christies Hospital having treatment for this cancer, anyone who objects to this vaccine needs treatment in the nearest mental hospital.

[kwicky]

If it saves lives and stops the spread of STIs whats the problem in not using it. Money well spent!

[chompu]

I think the average 12/13 old girl would understand that it wasn't an all encompassing prevention against STIs if it was explained to them.
I agree with Andy and others, promiscuity is caused by a persons pyschological state and therefore I can't see this jab encouraging it.
Many underage girls are put on the pill to counteract menstruation problems and I don't think it causes an increase in promiscuity with them.

[netibiza]

Hi there andy-hughes long time no see! x

[Le Chat]

You neither have to be young and/or promiscuous to catch the virus that can ultimately manifest into cervical cancer. The fact that it is to be given to girls of 12 or thereabouts is that this is the optimal age when it should be given, obviously for biological reasons. So the suggestion that it may encourage underage sex is preposterous! It will be given as a matter of routine, along with BCG, tetanus and all the others!

[andy-hughes]

Hi neti - how's it goin'?

A x

[suffragette]

I have no problem whatsoever with girls of twelve being vaccinated against the human papilloma virus. My objection was solely with the cheap tabloid shock tactics employed by the editorial team to highlight this particular question about cervical cancer.