Rhetoric shouldn’t enter into debate
Jan. 1, 2009
Manitoba children have returned to school, and this year, the parents of girls entering Grade 6 will have a new decision to make — whether or not to allow their daughters to be immunized with Gardasil as part of a newly-launched voluntary provincial program.
Gardasil is a vaccine for females between the ages of nine and 26 that prevents against four strains of human papillomavirus (HPV) — Types 6 and 11, which account for about 90% of all cases of genital warts, and Types 16 and 18, which account for about 70% of all cases of cervical cancer. It’s been the subject of heated public debate since it was approved for use by Health Canada in July 2006.
HPV is spread through skin-to-skin contact such as sex and/or intimate touching, and can remain dormant in the body for years. Indeed, it’s estimated that 70% of Canadians will contract at least one HPV infection in their lifetime. Although the vast majority will never develop symptoms, they’re still able to infect others.
For this reason, Gardasil is most effective when it’s administered to girls before they become sexually active — the justification behind a January 2007 recommendation by the Canadian National Advisory Committee on Immunization that all girls aged nine to 13 receive it.
The federal government took that recommendation seriously, announcing $300 million in financial support for immunization programs last March. As of this year, all 10 provinces have now officially launched HPV vaccination strategies. Manitoba’s publicly-funded program allows girls who qualify to receive it for free — a significant development that will remove a major barrier to access for many families, given that Gardasil currently costs about $600.
But not everyone is jumping on board the pro-Gardasil train. Some people are suspicious of all vaccines, while others are mistrustful of any product aggressively promoted by large pharmaceutical companies. In a position statement released last year, Winnipeg’s progressive Women’s Health Clinic suggested that widespread use of the vaccine would be “premature” due to a lack of long-term research on its safety and effectiveness, and may not be the best use of limited health care dollars.
The heart of the controversy around Gardasil, however, has more to do with morality than money.
The vaccine’s most vocal opponents are worried that offering it to young girls would be tantamount to encouraging promiscuity.
This line of reasoning is not all that rational. No one would argue, for example, that 14- to 16-year-olds are more likely to play with rusty nails because they receive a tetanus shot .
Parents will be required to sign a consent form before their daughters are vaccinated with Gardasil, and as such, it is their responsibility to educate themselves about both HPV and Gardasil in order to make an informed decision.
The debate about Gardasil is one that should be focussed on preventative health care, not sexual behaviour or fear-mongering rhetoric.
