No shot will be had here. I will not have anyone telling me what to put into my child's body. I have a history of people telling me what medications my child needs. This has to stop! First, much more research must be done. Second, this is a private decision to be made by a family and their physician. I don't think any little girl should be given the shot without her knowledge of it and the potential risks to her body. 9 or 90 she has a right to know what is happening to her. If she can't be made to understand, then she should not have it.
I choose to pass until I know more about it. I agree that my dd would need to be told about it and know what it's about before it would be done! It IS true, however, that you can talk with your kids and raise them well, and they can make good, pure choices, but one person can ruin it, sad to say, if anything happened. Noone plans to be raped or taken advantage of, yet it happens. So in that sense if I knew what the drug risk was I'd feel safer if she had it. But I don't want her having problems later down the line BECAUSE she had this shot! Life is so much more complicated than it used to be!
Or what about a guy that lived a wild life before he came to know the Lord? Now they are totally changed, but they could easily be carrying something from their previous life without being aware of it. And it could infect a totally innocent wife.
Wow...good point, Jackie and Deena. You are right, Deena, life is so complicated anymore. What happened to the days when you didn't have to consider such things??
I was just discussing this with a friend of mine. She said that she refuses to have her dd get the shot. She didn't think her dd was at risk or would be at risk. I did bring up the point that she could marry a man who is not a virgin or get sexually assulted...there are things beyond her control. She still said that the chances of that do not outweigh giving her dd a shot of something that could have side effects or the chance that she would contract cervical cancer. I guess we are weighing the unknown versus the unknown...that is kind of silly. I think I will stick with the unknown without the shot.
I'm in agreement with her, Ava. Even in my own life. My DH was married before, and wasn't a virgin even then. He IS a changed person now that he knows the Lord, and I know there is some risk to me as a result of his past, but I am honestly NOT concerned about it. And I surely wouldn't get a shot because of it, nor will I give it to my daughters. There's too many "what ifs" to worry about each and every one of them!
Isn't it true you can have this HPV and not know it? I thought that's what I read. So, any of us could have it right now and not know... To me, the shot could take that worry away. I suspect there won't be any male virgins left when Jeannie's old enough to be involved with someone- if there are any now.
I think you can have HPV and not know it. From my understanding you can have it in your system for dormat for years. I had a friend who had cervical cancer...she is perfectly fine now. I also think you can have it and it does not always develop into cervical cancer. I am all for preventative medicine but this shot is not my cup of tea. I know I easily could or could have been at risk for HPV, but I don't worry about it. If I don't want the shot and I could be at risk...why would I give it to my dds? My kids have all their vaccines but this one is not one I am conscenting to. I don't think the risk of cervical cancer is worth the risk of the shot. Besides, my ped told me when I was concerned about a vaccine containing mercury....that all my older dd's shots had mercury...some of my ds's shots had mercury and NONE of my little dd's shots will have it. So, over time mercury was taken out due to the risk. It just sickens me that my older dd had shots containing mercury and the risk of that was so that shots now do not contain it. When my older dd was little she was given the live vaccine of polio. NOw they no longer give that. Why? Because it can be dangerous. I had way too much faith in doctors when I had my first kid. I didn't even know she was getting a live vaccine. Unless...I am remembering incorrectly..lol...the live vaccine was the one the kid had to drink...that is the one she got. At any rate, I am not all that trusting when it comes to vaccines and pharmaceuticals. I remember as a kid being prescribed Saldane (sp??? allergy drug)! I took it every year until they took it off the market. My dh took vioxx for a short time until it was taken off the market. I took an antibiotic that is so dangerous it is off the market in several other countries. I had a horrible reaction to it. So...I think whenever I can opt out...I opt out.
My dd's are still young. After this new vaccine has been around a while I will have them get the shot. The way I see it, They might encounter this virus sexually or otherwise, and it can lead to death. I will get it early on and not wait to get it after the teenage sex talks. I think that waiting until in the teen years, might give the wrong impression. At a younger age, It is no dirrerent than getting the other shots. I also figure that there might be other viruses that have similar cell surface protiens, and their immune systems might be more prepared for those also as a result of immunization for HPV. Ask yourself this question. IF they had a vaccine against AIDS, would you get that for you kids. AIDS is also an STD, but there are other ways you could get it.
The issue of HPV being an STD has little to do with my decision. I will admit that is a small part of it...but if that was my only concern, I would probably let my dds get it. I actually don't think that anyone here is solely basing their decision on the fact that this is an STD. I am not so blind to think my child could not contract an STD. STD's can be contracted innocently...through sexual assult or a spouse who was not a virgin. So, it isn't a moral issue for me. I oppose the state saying the shot is mandatory unless we "opt out" and I have no faith in new vaccines. Too many things have been recalled or found later to cause death. Sorry, I'd take my chances with HPV. Not everyone has it and not everyone will get cervical cancer because of it. I will admit that cervical cancer always scared me since I know I or my dh were not virgins. However, that is life. Sometimes there are consequences to sin. Now, don't get all offended anyone. I would never imply or mean that anyone who gets cervical cancer deserves it. Heavens no! Like I said, it easily could be me. Besides, some car accidents are fatal but I think my girls will still learn how to drive. I am sure the chances of a car accident are greater than cervical cancer.
I saw the school lunch programs mentioned here. Just a thought to consider. Small things like proper nutrition during the first few years can mean MANY IQ points difference in brain development. This is why WIC is considered a "value" in terms of tax dollars. If you think a few dollars worth of goceries are expensive, keeping up with folks whose IQ's are below 70 for life is even more costly. So is cervical cancer. It is not cheap to have the state cut those warts off as clinics. The cancer surgeries, hospitalizations and radiation and chemo, etc is not cheap either. THe gov. is looking at strictly from a $$$$$$$ veiwpoint. I am here to parent my kids, and can and will decide when and if to give the shot, for those kids whose parents have decided to let Uncle Sam parent, I say Line 'em up!!! ...because they will likely not use the condoms that "uncle" gives them later. Actually the above was just for shock. I acually think that it is too early for the gov.s to require mandatory vac. This is just still too new for that.
Vantage, you make very intelligent and logical arguements. There is a part of me that wants the government to step in for innocent children who are being raised by uncaring or unfit parents. However, notice that NOTHING in what the government does distinguishes a "good" parent and one who has decided to allow Uncle Sam to raise thier kids. Overall, my sympathies for come children do not outweigh my distain and suspicion for government interferance in the raising of children. I see it as a slippery slope. Once we give up the rights of so-called uncaring and unfit parents we may as well be ready to hand ours over also.
No, Vantage, if there was a vaccine against AIDS, I would NOT get it for my kids. I"d have the same concerns about it being untested in the long-term. And by that, I mean in about 40 years. We'd be talking for my grandkids, MAYBE, if not my Great-Grandkids.
That question was intended to diffuse the questions regarding the STD issue, not the saftey issues. For us the standards for data collection regarding safety equate to a bit shorter period of time. :wink:
My aurguments assume the parental right to decline, postpone or whatever. I would be against mandatory requirements. If its not in the U.S. Constitution's assigned duties for the gov. I am likely against it, especially where it takes away liberty. The people who get shots for themselves or their kids without questioning or reading up on them are likely those who need them most. My My does that sound elitist. Yikes, can one harbor elitist tendancies, and remain a constitutionalist. Hmmmm.
I am not ready to assume my rights will decline...at least without a fight. I know it may be a loosing battle but one worth fighting for. I do see your point. I just won't condone any action that impedes my liberties. So, whenever something appears to "parent" for me...a red flag goes up. I don't think that people who gets shots without reading up are the ones who need it most. A lot of people trust their doctors. I know I didn't read up on every shot before it was administered to my child. Should I have? Yes. However, I was a first time parent..I thought shots were just par for the course. I am college educated and not an uncaring parent...just naive at that time. And some don't give a hoot, but that does not mean they should be subject to vaccines that can be potentially harmful. Besides, do kids of these "type" of parents that you are speaking of...deserve possible side effects to themselves or their children? How do we make that decision for them? Does a lack of understanding or even caring mean they should be put at risk for deadly or harmful side effects? I think doctors need to take more time to educate their patients. I know they won't. Maybe those of us that will look those things up should spread the word. My rights are not more important or more valid than those of someone who doesn't think twice about a vaccine. Now, I don't think you have any ill intentions or prejudices. I am just bringing up another side of this.
That is me exactly!!!! So now I am curious with all the talk of this vacine - how many of you vacinate your children and how many don't? Not for HPV but regular vacines. I vacinated both of my children.
I've given my chldren all but the chicken pox. My cousin has a 5 (or is he 6?) year old boy, and doesn't vacinate him at all. She's a chiropractor.
I think there are a lot of valid points on this, but let me put this question in: have any of you had a child with cancer? Its not fun. No matter what kind of cancer it is. You know I wish there was a vaccine for all kinds of cancers, but there isn't. SO we have an OPTION to let our DD"s have this one chance not to get a certian kind of cancer. Its not like the chicken pox, not too many kids die of chicken pox. But women do die often from cervical cancer. Yes its a new vaccine, the polio vaccine was new once too, but I'm glad I get that for the kids too. Sometimes you just need to trust in something new. I think it would be great if my kids weren't at the age I didn't have to make a decision yet, but last time I took the kids in for their well health check up I had to decide, I guess I could have said no, let me think about it more, but I've read the pamphlets about it. Has anyone else?
