Please post your blog comments to week 14’s readings on HIV/AIDS, STIs, and HPV here!
29 thoughts on “Week Fourteen Readings, please post your comments here!”
Let me see, I have alot to say. Obviously, STDS and HIV/AIDS is a HUGE problem in our society- in any society. Humans are essentially sexual beings, therefore, I believe that sexual health will always be a profound topic in public health and in society. In addition, i think it is important to remember a great lesson from HIV/AIDS… in that, even if we eliminated all known STDS, new ones can appear in the future. therefore, we need to create comprehensive measures to prevent the spread of STDS, now and in the future. Of course, this boils down to safe sex. In the end, the terminology “safe sex” is juxtaposed because I don’t believe there is anything that constitutes absolutely 100% safe sex. And that doesn’t mean we should jump on the abstinence band wagon. What this means is that as a society we have to be realistic about how “safe” sex can get and what that means for society as a whole. Importantly, people must have access to to sex education and realistic sex education. I think promoting only abstinence is not realistic in any society.. because like I said, the human is a sexual being. I think the word “safe” in regards to sex needs to incoroporate all features of health, including: mental/emotional well-being, physical health, etc. Sex is as an act incorporates all portions of an individual that make us human and all those aspects need to be nourished positively.
One remark I must make, is that the health paradigm needs to move away from blaming a woman’s sexual life for her sexual health. Humans are sexual!!!! Most people in their life time will have more than one sex partner!!!! I am tired of reading disclaimers that say having more than one sexual partner predisposes you to STDS!!! Unsafe sexual practices predisposes you to STDS!!! People need to stop feeling guilty about their sexual preferences or sexual life just because the mainstream rhetoric implies that anyone who has ever had more than one partner is promiscuous. And i Hate the term promiscuous!!! The term promiscous is a term used by those in the main to attack what they see as unfit sexual practices. in my mind EVERYONE is PROMISCUOUS!!!
Next, in regards to HPV…. !!!! …. In the article on Syndemics i think one of the most important points was that women in monogomous relationships generally stopped using condoms after two months despite the fact that most of those women questioned the faithfulness of their partner! first, i want to say that i don’t want everyone to be suspicious of their partner… but even if your partner isn’t cheating- they could have contracted HPV previously and could exhibit no symptoms. therefore, when you may feel that a certain level of trust is reached in your relationship- and therefore condom use is thrown out the window, you don’t really know what is going on in concerns to their sexual health. I think people need to be more aware that most people with HPV are asymptomatic, and thus people should air on the side of caution!~!!!! in addition, there is no way to test men for HPV yet- thus, if a man has no symptoms there is no 100% guarantee that he doesn’t carry HPV… therefore, i think condom use is essential ALWAYS for the protection against STDS!!! the only time i would promote not using condoms is in the case where one was trying to start a family!
Another point i want to make is about STIGMA. STDS carry alot of social stigma which affect the health of persons with STDS. i lived with a girl for a year who had HPV. she often felt like a leper because her doctor told her she could not share things like a bar of soap with people she lived with or beverages. I’ve read that they are still studying the transmission of HPV through materials like towels and beverages… but she still felt like she needed to air on the side of caution. therefore, we would separate our bathing stuffs and i could always tell this affected her greatly. After she was diagnosed with HPV she broke up with her boyfriend because she didn’t feel like she could tell him or that he’d just dump her anyways. After that, she didn’t have any sexual relations for awhile because she didn’t want to give it to anyone else and she also didn’t want to tell alot of people for fear they would treat her differently. in addition, i heard alot of people talking about her behind her back… making statements like it was her own fault that she had HPV or that she must be a big slut because she has an STD…. i think we, as a society, need to change the way we view STDS. we can’t blame or socially oust people who have STDS, yet we do this daily. i think it is important to remember the 99.9% of the world has sex in their lifetime. by having sex just once you run the risk of contracting an STD. therefore, just because someone has an STD doesn’t make them a slut or a social pariah. we need to provide support to everyone, STD or no STD.
PS- please check out this website!!! i found it tonight and it is ABSOLUTELY GREAT!!!
the website is a great resource… i think everyone should know about it- and i guarantee you’ll have a REALLY FUN time learning about safe sex practices!!! there is even a section on VEGAN CONDOMS…
before looking at this website i never knew that MOST CONDOMS CONTAIN MILK!!! but if you’re vegan don’t fear, there are vegan condoms… Some brands of vegan, cruelty-free condoms are Condomi and Glyde condoms.
The topic of STD’s especially HPV is something that has an emotional effect on me for many different reasons. Therefore, the two articles about HPV, HPV Vaccine: A Call for a Mandatory Vaccine, and HPV Vaccines, and Gender: Policy considerations were the ones that affected me the most. I have read many articles that explain the vaccine and how it works, and why it works. I myself have gotten the HPV vaccine and I am happy I did. I do believe that it is important for young girls to get vaccinated and they should make it mandatory. When children go to the doctors they do not know any of the shots they are getting, why does it make a difference to give them this shot that could change their lives? All the child would have to know was that it is a shot to protect them from a virus. Also, there is no way children will let their sexual inhibitions go when they receive this shot, they will be so young they won’t even really understand! Hopefully, if we vaccinate our children early enough, this virus can be eradicated from the United States. However, to do this, I believe vaccinations should not stop there. The pharmaceutical world needs to come out with a vaccine to prevent males from contracting HPV. Even though they do not show signs of symptoms of HPV they still have it and still pass it on to women. Once this is accomplished, I believe HPV can be eliminated with the right education and right vaccination. Yes, of course there are some risks, but there are risks for ANY shot you receive. Is a mother not going to vaccinate their child for Polio because there is an extremely tiny chance they can develop the virus. A mother who would stop their child from receiving a Polio shot could get their child taken away from them. I believe that this should be enforced the same way.
One might wonder why I am so in favor of the HPV vaccination. My friend got diagnosed with cervical cancer the first time she went to a gynecologist when she was eighteen years old. Luckily, her doctors did catch it soon enough so she did not die or get extremely sick. However, there is a 50/50 chance she might not be able to have children. Of course as her friends we were shocked she never got a pap smear in her life until that point, but now at age 22 some of my friends still haven’t gotten one! I tell my friends the story about my friend and encourage them to go. A lot of my friends do not understand how easy it is to get HPV and how there are no signs or symptoms. My friends tell me “I would know if I had something wrong.â€, but you really don’t know you have something wrong 75% of the time. Like many of you I’m sure, I have had friends who developed HPV. When it was caught early (since they were getting pap smears every year), it went away on its own and did not give any of my friends anything to worry about, since they had a doctor watching their cells to make sure they did not change. However, if you never get a pap smear and you cells turn into HPV and them become malignant how would you know? I completely understand that some low-income women who do not have health insurance cannot afford a pap smear every year. That is why I believe gynecologist visits need to be covered under any insurance or paid for by the state. It is crucial to saving people’s lives! I have seen cervical cancer change one person’s life, and that is one too many for me.
I have researched a lot about HPV and the HPV vaccine in other classes and I have come to the realization that the vaccine is a necessity and should be provided for everyone. I have gotten the vaccine myself and I am very grateful that there has been enough research done to come up with a vaccine. I know many women die from cervical cancer and it is sad to even think it could have been prevented with an annual papsmear. I think it is horrible that women often die from cervical cancer because they cannot afford health care. This is why I think the vaccine should be mandatory and funded so that all young girls can receive it early before sexual activity. It is scary to think that you can have HPV without any symptoms and then find out you have cervical cancer. The statistics show that over 6 million Americans will get a new case of HPV in the year. I think that is enough to provide the vaccine for everyone if we have the ability to prevent such a bad virus. I agree with pinkgrl6 in that there should be a vaccine for men because men do not know they have the virus and are passing it on to women. I understand that to compromise with certain groups and affiliations there is an opt-out for parents to decide that their child should not get the vaccine. I think that the opt-out could cause problems too because many parents will deny their child from the vaccine because they believe in 100% abstinence. As explained in the reading, HPV Vaccine: a call for mandatory vaccination, groups claim that the vaccine conflicts with their-abstinence only message. I think that is obsurd because giving the vaccine isnt portraying anything, it is just preventing a girl at a young age from getting HPV. Much of the time abstinence only beliefs do not even educate young teens about prevention, so if they do decide to have sex they are more likely to be at risk. There are so many women getting infected and it is mostly due to lack of knowledge. In the reading “Syndemics, sex and the city,” it was surprising to see the different mentalities of the men and women in hartford, CT and the amount of unprotected sex with casual partners. I think it is obvious that certain populations in certain areas are more concentrated with life-threatening diseases. This means that there is a problem that needs to gain more attention. More funding and availabilty of prevention education and resources need to be at hand for the population. When interviewing the participants in CT, it was surprising to see so much infidelity. I feel that everybody has the choice to date as many people as they want but a lot of the sexual activity amongst them was unprotected. The participants talk about how they know their partner is being untruthful but still use no condoms because condoms mean lack of trust. It was also the norm that both the men and women thought in terms of “who is safe” rather than “which behaviors are risky.” There are so many other factors that need to be discussed with these participants rather than just giving them condoms and telling them to use them. Their social conditions and psychosocial factors are what shape their experiences. Social disadvantage is leading to so many other health risks and its not fair! It is not fair to judge an individual and say they are just irresponsible because there are so many social factors that contribute to causes of STDs.
I remember first learning about the HPV vaccination in one of my many public health classes and I remember becoming absolutely ecstatic. I remember thinking about the endless possibilities of a vaccination that could prevent women from contracting an STD, especially one that is known to cause cervical cancer. I also remember being extremely enraged by the massive amounts of opposition it was receiving from far right groups.
I, like Star, have done extensive reading on the HPV vaccination and also have come to the conclusion that this medical intervention is more helpful than harmful to young girls and adolescents. I think that it is preposterous for far right groups to say that by vaccinating young girls and adolescents, it is going to create them to become more promiscuous and give them the green light to go and have sex. That is like saying that once you get vaccinated for a tetanus shot; you’re going to run around stepping on rusty old needles. It’s just not going to happen like that.
I remember talking to my gynecologist about the vaccination and she too was also overjoyed. We also talked about the opposition that the vaccine was facing and I remember her bringing up an excellent point to the far rights belief that by vaccinating young girls it will make them more promiscuous. My gynecologist told me even if a woman waited until marriage to have sex, it could be highly likely that her finance could have contracted HPV at some point during his lifetime and pass it onto his wife. So even if women were waiting until marriage to have sex, they still could be contracting the virus, even if they remained abstinent for the duration of their single life. So should women just remain abstinent for their entire life?
Reading Syndemics, sex and the city: Understanding sexually transmitted diseases in social and cultural context, really hit home to me because I work at Hartford Hospital and I see the actual people in which this article addresses. Pretty much every single female who comes into the clinic is a minority and the majority of these women has had some kind of STD or STI or has a history of abnormal pap smears. It was extremely disheartening to read about the lack of faith that women have in their sexual partners and how they were afraid to commit or “catch a feeling†or fall in love and be monogamous with the men who they were already having sexual relations with. It also was very depressing to realize how many women are scared to ask their male partners to wear a condom for fear of losing the relationship. These women are literally risking their sexual health, just so that they will not have to be alone.
I believe that a massive public health intervention needs to come into effect not only for the city of Hartford, but also for cities worldwide. I believe that the results and findings of the prevalence of STDS in Hartford CT are equivalent to cities worldwide. STDS can seriously affect the quality of a person’s life and I believe that the public health community needs to enforce more comprehensive sexual education worldwide.
It is evident in reading the other blog entries this week that HPV is a major public health issue among women especially. In her blog, Sassy brought up the stigma that is attached to sexually transmitted infections, even extremely common infections like HPV. Unfortunately, as noted in many of the other entries, the burden of this stigma is disproportionately carried by women. This may be due to the fact that for most all but 2 strains of the HPV virus, there are no external symptoms, and for men, unless they are experiencing an outbreak of genital warts due to HPV, there is no testing procedure. Women on the other hand have the great pleasure of having annual pelvic exams and pap smears which will check for cervical changes due to HPV infection. So we often carry the burden of being the one “diagnosed†with HPV and perhaps feeling responsible to share this diagnosis with our partners. And as these readings reveal, obviously their partners carry the virus too! However, as noted in another blog, there is no way to trace HPV, so a woman who hasn’t been diagnosed and most men will not even be aware that they are carriers of the virus.
As we discussed last week, there are so many things tied up in pelvic exams, issues of embarrassment, discomfort, vulnerability, power, control and perhaps most relevant to this weeks readings, judgment. Unfortunately many women have felt judged by reproductive healthcare providers. Often these judgments are about women’s sexual behavior and decision makings including judgments about how women “should be†and what can happen or what they “get†if they stray from these acceptable codes of sexual behavior. In my own experience, I think just talking about HPV is helpful in debunking some of the ridiculous myths about HPV and other STI’s and the resulting judgments about these issues. I think that perhaps one of the most unfortunate results of a woman being diagnosed with HPV is the effect it has on her mentally and emotionally. How it effects her perception of herself and how it affects the choices she makes. I felt really sad reading that Sassy’s friend broke up with her boyfriend rather than telling him about her diagnosis with HPV. In my experience as a health counselor I heard many similar stories from women who were feeling ashamed of themselves for having a virus that estimates say 80% of the sexually active population will carry at one time or another! I think that dialogue about this virus outside of the dialogue started by the HPV vaccine is extremely important. Women talking with other women who have HPV, who have had repeated Pap smears and colposcopies and who have had cervical cancer and normalizing this experience will hopefully reduce the feelings of shame and guilt that women might feel because of HPV. Women and men need to understand how common HPV is.
In terms of the HPV vaccine, I think it is great that it exists and is available to women and I hope that the state and government are able to continue to make it available to women who want it for free. I am not sure how I feel about mandatory vaccination however. This past October there was a panel discussion on HPV at Umass. There were a lot of issues raised about mandating the vaccine, including how much money it will cost each state because if it is mandatory, the state has to pay for it, and also, how safe and effective is it? There are many things that are not known yet because it is so new. One issue is that experts don’t know yet if women will need boosters to maintain immunity. If they do, it is expected they will need them in 5 to 6 years from the first shot. This puts women who get the shot at 11 at 16 or 17, when most of them will start becoming sexually active. Does this vaccine create a false sense of security? Will it decrease the numbers of women who go for regular gynecological care which is important in other ways? Is it one more medical intervention that women, not men will be exposed to, and we do not know the effects down the line? Also, could money spent on mandating the vaccine be spent on other public health issues such as true health education in schools that would help educate women and men about HPV as well as other aspects of sexual health. I appreciate that the HPV vaccine is available, and I hope the dialogue about it continues.
I recently received my first of the three Gardasil shots and I when I mentioned it to friends, some thought it was a futile effort. I was already sexually active so how could it help me now? It’s important to note that Gardasil protects against the four most common strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer and genital warts. There is over a hundred strands of HPV so even though I am sexually active that doesn’t mean I have already come into contact with those four strains. I’m trying to protect myself the best way I know how and receiving Gardasil isn’t a futile effort.
Also, another important note is that women under 30 yrs of age who come into contact with HPV usually don’t contract the disease for life. They will be exposed and might even have abnormal pap smears but their bodies usually clear it up on their own. After 30 yrs of age, the body’s immune system isn’t as effective.
At the doctor’s office, before I received my shot for Gardasil, the nurse asked me if I had any questions. I asked how long this vaccine would protect me. She said the studies show at least 5 yrs but that they can give booster shots after that. She followed up my question with, “Wow, you were the first person to ever ask me that.” That shocked me, because she’s giving these shots on a daily basis and yet no one has asked that question?
I’m worried that women are viewing this vaccine as a life-long immunity instead of a short term protection method. I think the confusion comes from the fact that they’re describing Gardasil as a vaccine, a prevention method that should be given to girls when they’re younger with “the rest of the vaccines (i.e. MMR = Measles, Mumps, Rubella, DTaP = Diptheria, tetanus, pertussis, IPV = polio just to name a few common ones). The problem is that the rest of these vaccines usually give immunity for life or at least much longer than 5 yrs with a booster shot if necessary. Gardasil isn’t for life but people think it is because it’s talked about in the context of other vaccines. I think this is creating a false sense of security against HPV that Gardasil’s maker needs to make clear that they will need a booster and still use safe sex practices.
I’m hoping that a test for HPV comes out for men soon and also a vaccine for them as well against the disease. It’s hard to say if a person has it since it’s not like other STIs in that it can take a long time to show up on a pap smear. So the partner you got it from, might not be your current partner, but one from the past. This creates a lot of confusion and makes it even harder to protect others from getting the disease if you don’t know you’ve had it all this time while you were having unprotected sex with other people. That’s what makes this virus so dangerous, it’s it can remain undetected while it’s being transmitted.
Using condoms religiously (haha what an oxymoron) can’t even guarantee 100% protection against HPV as it can be transmitted through skin to skin contact so the surrouding area of the genitals is still dangerous. It definitely cuts down on the incidence of contracting the disease though.
However, I unfortunately related to some of the subjects in the Syndemics paper when they described condom use in long term relationships. Using a condom in the beginning of the relationship is expected and respected but after 1-2 months, using a condom can be seen as a gesture of mistrust of the other partner. Even after all the sexual education and health care practices I’ve studied, I still decide if a partner is “safe” or not by looking at their physical appearance and what kind of a background they came from. Are they dirty or clean? Do they sleep around or have only been in a few committed relationships? Do they come from a respectable family or do they seem sketchy? None of these factors can tell a person if their partner is “safe” or not. A partner could have only slept with one person and have an STI. It’s foolish of me when I realized I had been using these same haphazard standards to analyze my partners.
It seems that even if both partners in a monogamous relationship were tested for STIs and were given a clean bill of health, they could still have the undetectable HPV and pose a dangerous risk to the other partner.
I guess no sexual activity is the answer to keeping yourself completely safe but I know that myself and most other young adults out there aren’t willing to adopt that practice. I don’t think this makes me a self-destructive or irresponsible person, just a person who’s trying to make the best of a difficult situation. I won’t live in constant fear.
Sex is a very powerful thing; it makes people happy, it makes people angry, or sad or frightened, you name it. It can be looked at positively, or negatively, or both at the same time. It’s talked about a lot, maybe too much sometimes, or not enough when it really counts.
My family has never been open about sex. One time in high school while trapped in my mother’s car she asked me what kind of protection i was using, this was a premature question, seeing as I wasn’t having sex at that point. Lately she’s been on a huge kick about getting me to do the HPV vaccine. She doesn’t talk to me about birth control, only HPV. I think it has a lot to do with the media attention surrounding the vaccine. I hope that at the very least, the controversy surrounding the vaccine will inspire communication and conversation about safe sex between parents and children. I think something thats very important to consider in the debate about mandatory vaccination is the fact that most parents really have absolutely no, not even the slightest idea of what their children are up to. They may think their child isn’t sexually active, but in reality they are. Kids are becoming sexually active earlier in life, how can you blame them, our culture is so over sexualized. I don’t think it’d be ludicrous to vaccinate a 9 year old. Parents look at their children and see them as pure, so young, etc but in reality they could be sexually active and just not telling their parents (for whatever reason) so the parents think its insane to vaccinate their little baby girl. This isn’t all youth, but I’ve seen it.
I’ve been meaning to go and get the vaccine, I’ve just been too busy, poor excuse I know. But in the meantime I’ve been doing research about it. A friend of mine recently got an abnormal reading on her pap smear, she complained, saying she got the vaccine so she should have been protected. I told her the vaccine only protects against a few strains (of the many, many) ones out there, in addition the vaccine wouldn’t help if she had already been exposed or been exposed before the complete vaccination. I think a lot of people live under the premise that since they have the vaccine, they’re protected, which is a false sense of safety. This is similar to when people believe that just because they’re on the pill (and not using any condoms), they’re having safe sex. Not true. I’m currently in a heterosexual, monogamous relationship, and have been for the last year or so. This may be too much info for ya’ll, but whatever, I always use a condom when having sex. Not in fear of pregnancy, but more in fear of STI’s. I know he’s got a clean record, as do I, but I know that first of all, there is no HPV test for men. In addition to that, according to my knowledge, it’s possible to have been exposed to HPV and be a carrier, therefore being able to affect people, while not expressing symptoms/testing positive for it because it lies dormant. Also, it’s disturbing to me that the right groups use fear of getting cervical cancer, STI’s, babies, etc as a tactic to scare people away from sexual relationships. They see sex as threatening. People should be encouraging healthy, positive views of sexuality. Personally, I feel that viewing sex negatively has long-term adverse effects such as embarrassment about pleasure, STI’s, not being sexually fulfilled, negative body image, etc. I’ve also seen abstinence only education pushing non intercourse forms of sexual intimacy. But through these forms it’s still possible to contract HPV. This blows my mind because those same people don’t endorse the vaccination.
I believe all girls should be given the HPV shot, along with all other vaccines that are given out. I am currently in the process of receiving the three shots which are given over 9 months. Knowing that I am getting the vaccination, it do understand that it is not protection against every strain of HPV, so I therefore still have to take preventative measures. Also, knowing I am being vaccinated, I don’t think of sex and want to necessarily have it, so assuming that young girls will get the shot and then want to, is absurd.
I found the article “Syndemics, sex and the city: Understanding sexually transmitted diseases in social and cultural context†to be the most interesting, mostly because I could relate to the feelings that many of those interviewed had toward their sexual relations and the beliefs they had toward STD’s. It made me feel naïve with my own beliefs, especially one interviewee whom believed that because they had been with the same partner for a while, that condoms no longer had to be used… even though they had never talked to their partner about STD’s, and felt that abstaining from condoms would keep the relationship going. I feel sex is better with “skin-to-skin†contact, and on birth control I assume that my partner is clean if I’ve been with him for 3 months and haven’t seen any evidence or sickness. My boyfriend could be cheating on me (I trust him and hope he isn’t) but it is hard to ever really trust anyone or know their past. I feel the part of the article about “protection should not be used unless you intend on starting a family†is somewhat of a drastic measure. Assuming this being condoms, or protection other than pregnancy, is a hard concept. It might be somewhat risky but I feel that you cannot live life being fearful of acquiring an STD, if you have been with a partner for a while. That statement can be debated, but it is a person belief of mine. Living a promiscuous lifestyle is a personal choice, but I feel that many of the people that live like this, especially like in the article, are not making their choices because they believe it is their free will, but rather because they are un-educated in the STD department. Even though this article pertained to Hartford, CT., I feel that our community at UMass shares a lot of the same views. At the same time, we are much less aware of the rates of STD’s on campus. The fact that STD’s come with such a stigma, makes it a secret or embarrassment for those whom have contracted them.
I strongly agree with everyone else who has blogged so far in saying that the HPV vaccine is an EXCELLENT preventative measure for young women, and I think that it is important for all young women. Why is it that so many people are opposed to this vaccine? Is it because it has to do with an STI? I would say yes.. and I would be willing to say that other vaccines, such as booster shots that you get when you’re a kid don’t face as much criticism as this vaccine. I guess I just don’t understand what the problem is and why so many people are opposed. However, I don’t think that this HPV vaccine is the answer, or that just by getting this vaccine, you’re protected from all STI’s and blah blah blah.. That is obviously not true, and I think that education on the subject would prevent people from thinking this way.
In the Syndemics article, I thought that the part about using condoms when the relationship is new is totally true, and I thought it was a really good observation to say that as the relationship is broken in, condom use seems to decline. It is really easy when you’re in a committed and monogomous relationship to just not use a condom or another type of protection. I think this is a trend that needs to be broken, and that ones health and safety should be valued enough to be protected all the time.
I couldn’t agree more with Gazpacho in saying that right wingers who try to discourage sexual activity by using these scare tactics are just ridiculous. It is totally adding to people having negative views about sexuality.. and this is something that we’re trying to move away from as a society. For example, some are fighting for gay and lesbian rights, abortion rights, and a womans right to control her own body. Politicans and other powerful figures in society cannot be promoting these negative views of sexuality.. it just sets us back.
When I was home for Thanksgiving break, I got my third HPV vaccine, and I am so glad that I did. One thing I was really happy about was when my gynocologist was counseling me before I decided to get the vaccine, she was sure to remind me that getting this vaccine DOES NOT replace using condoms or protecting myself otherwise. She also pointed out that it only protects against 4 strains of HPV, and these are 4 that have been found to cause cervical cancer. I am really glad that she educated me on this beforehand, and she wasn’t simply trying to force me to get the vaccine. In other words, I never thought that getting this vaccine meant that I was forever protected against STI’s.. HPV in particular. I’m glad I did it!
Ever since Dr. Sievert came to lecture during our class about menopause, I have been thinking a lot about what she was getting at toward the end of her presentation about the need to bridge the gap between the social and physical sciences. This week’s blog entries are no exception to this notion of harmony in the sciences. Many of the above blog entries have mentioned the need to closely inspect and even redefine our definitions of sexuality under the American social constructs–what it means to be “promiscuous” or what it means to be infected with a sexually transmitted infection/disease/virus, and what are the ramifications of these labels on our own mentality, and how this affects the way in which we view the rest of society. These social labels and its repercussions on the field of public health are perfectly illustrated in the right-wing conservative argument against Gardasil: that if we vaccinate young girls this means they will become highly sexually active at a younger age, that somehow protecting them with a vaccine encourages “dangerous” sexual activity at a young age. This idea implies several things: one, that women, in general, are too stupid to make well-educated, smart and good choices in our everyday lives, that something as little as a vaccine is enough to influence us to the degree that we begin having sex with everyone and anyone without the slightest mode of protection/screening; two, that sex is innately an evil, bad act that we must protect all fragile young women from, that it is not merely another part of life; three, that a vaccine should be considered dangerous NOT because of shortage of research/information, but rather because it “condones” sex and apparently turns all 9-yr olds into crack-whores…(I could go on forever about the hidden agendas of right wing conservatives but I will stop right here)…I will say though, that it is SERIOUSLY unfortunate that this precious and vital dialogue about STIs/HPV/Gardasil is being mucked up with the RIDICULOUS/LUDICROUS arguments of right-wing conservatives, as McLovin intelligently pointed out already: “I think that it is preposterous for far right groups to say that by vaccinating young girls and adolescents, it is going to create them to become more promiscuous and give them the green light to go and have sex. That is like saying that once you get vaccinated for a tetanus shot; you’re going to run around stepping on rusty old needles. It’s just not going to happen like that.”
… BECAUSE the truth is, as several of the above bloggers have pointed out, there is a genuine, warranted concern of the the implementation of Gardasil in a nation-wide vaccination-type setting. However THESE concerns are due to legitimate arguments surrounding Merck, the advertising of Gardasil, the research behind it that could be EASILY argued to be deemed insufficient, (and I say legitimate because none of these concerns undermine/patronize women in general in any way, have the hidden agenda of any religious organization,and actually aim at trying to figure out how this vaccination might affect ALLLLL PEOPLE)… For instance, as SEVERAL of the above bloggers have mentioned, one main concern is the fact that the vaccine might lull women into a “false sense of security,” which is NOT comparable to the kind of “false sense” conservatives seem to be talking about where the vaccine somehow mobilizes 9-year olds to participate in unadulterated sex romps in the streets… Rather, as Gazpacho took the words right out of my mouth, it implies that “a lot of people live under the premise that since they have the vaccine, they’re protected, which is a false sense of safety. This is similar to when people believe that just because they’re on the pill (and not using any condoms), they’re having safe sex.” I’ve noticed this many times with my girlfriends who are on the pill and often choose not to use a condom because they feel that with the pill that are sufficiently protected, when the truth is that they are not protected against ANY STDs, but rather that they are living in the alternate universe where EVERYone is clean and std-free. In fact, many of these same young women use the “screening process” that AutumnRocks has described:
“Even after all the sexual education and health care practices I’ve studied, I still decide if a partner is “safe†or not by looking at their physical appearance and what kind of a background they came from. Are they dirty or clean? Do they sleep around or have only been in a few committed relationships? Do they come from a respectable family or do they seem sketchy? None of these factors can tell a person if their partner is “safe†or not. A partner could have only slept with one person and have an STI. It’s foolish of me when I realized I had been using these same haphazard standards to analyze my partners.”
The funny thing is, that even through all this debate, through all the ridiculous propaganda from right wing conservatives, and the dubious actions behind Merck and its research/advertising for Gardasil, THE SOLUTION exists in PRECISELY what we are doing with this blog/class. It may sound cheesy, but I am a FIRM believer in the fact that knowledge is power and that education is the key to good health. The same can be applied here, with our current situation with the commonality of HPV and the options we have been offered by the medical community. The KEY is to talk, discuss ALL of our options with our health care providers, with EACH OTHER, and figure out what is best for us all together, and as individuals after weighing the pros and cons. Personally, I am delighted that Gardasil exists but like many have already stated, I am concerned about a nation wide implementation after research that is SO recent, and to me, seems somewhat insufficient. I am also worried about what it means psychologically for a society that implements these vaccinations only in women, because it seems more and more that the weight of these dillemmas is falling squarely and injustly on the shoulders of women only. I am inspired by Gazpacho’s personal story of her relationship with her boyfriend and their condom use beaucse, as cheesy as this sounds, it gives me hope that we are moving away from all that is discussed in the syndemics article and moving more towards the equal sharing of responsibility concerning sexual health between men and women in heterosexual relationships. All in all though, I could not agree more with Feefer when she states: “I appreciate that the HPV vaccine is available, and I hope the dialogue about it continues.”
In regaurds to treating/preventing HPV, i found the article on making vaccination mandatory to be concerning. While this new Gardasil vaccine has been found to prevent 4 strains of HPV that can lead to cervical cancer, it is brand new, and who is to know of its side effects later on in life. To me, getting this vaccine based off of the sheer fact that a doctor is telling you to and not researching into how it could effect your own body, is equally as risky as not using any methods to prevent HPV. As the article talks about, 11 years old is a very young age to be giving Gardasil to girls. I understand the idea that vaccinating at an age young enough that there has been no sexual contact yet makes sense, but what are you having injected into your daughters body and would she want to be having it if she were old enough to make this decision for herself? Trying to make the vaccination mandatory is so wrong to me, it should be given based on a woman’s desire to have it, and if she does not feel it is safe or for her, than she should not be made to feel she should be given this treatment. On the contrary side, those who are pro-abstinence do not have the right approach towards HPV treatment/prevention either. EVery child is not going to remain abstinent and HPV can be contracted, and there should be something out there, such as Gardasil, for those who wish to have it, but also not be forced to get it. I know on a personal level, I received my first Gardasil shot in about april. I was at my doctors for a physical and i was told, “your mom wanted you to get this Gardasil shot” My mom hadnt said anything to me before i left the waiting room and went into the office (not on purpose) and I was a bit caught off guard. I had seen commercials, however, and I knew it was for HPV, which i also had heard is becoming very very common among girls I know and went to school with. Based off that alone, I asked no questions, and I got my first shot. I asked my mom about it and she had said ooh thats right your sister wanted to get that shot and so i told the doctor to give it to you as well, seems like a safe idea right. I probably should have been consulted, but I also did not speak up and ask a single question about what was about to go into my own body. I made sure I asked plenty of my own questions the next visit.
These readings about Gardasil and the controversy that surrounds its distribution come at an interesting time; I just watched a film called “Big Bucks, Big Pharma: Marketing Disease and Pushing Drugs” for another class that looked critically at the US drug industry. It has a definite liberal bent (which I’m okay with) but it was a really interesting film to watch–it’s available at the course website, http://www.comm387.com/exam2.htm under “Required Films.”
Anyway…a lot of what was said in the readings for this week about the HPV vaccine seemed really in line with the criticisms of the drug industry mentioned in the film. For example, the article about the HPV vaccine in Canada noted that despite extensive media hype, no clinical trial evidence has actually been given for the HPV vaccine. One thing I remember from the film was that when new drugs are introduced, they don’t have to prove they’re any more effective than an existing treatment in order to be approved–they only have to prove themselves more effective than a placebo.
Much of the popular support of Gardasil comes from its extensive advertising; commercials for the vaccine show happy, healthy women living great lifestyles. This method is the standard for most drug advertising; it is the lifestyle, not the health outcome, being campaigned for. The clearly professional and expensive nature of the advertising makes me wonder how much of the motivation is improving women’s health, and how much is for drug companies to make a profit. Another point from the film: while direct-to-consumer advertising has gotten more and more common, most drug promotions are aimed at doctors. Doctors who are approached by drug representatives, sometimes being given gifts or other methods of persuasion, might be significantly more likely to recommend a vaccine or drug to a patient.
Ultimately I think an HPV vaccine is a good idea, and I agree with the call for mandating the vaccine for preteen girls. The opt-out clause would allow parents who were morally or religiously opposed to preserve their freedom of choice; the majority of parents, who would probably not object, are also not too likely to go out of their way to get their children vaccinated if the vaccine is something controversial and not a common practice. Mandating the vaccine would be very effective in getting parents who are on the fence or indifferent to vaccinate their children against HPV. I have only one qualm: since the vaccine is still relatively new, I can’t help thinking about past examples, such as that of earlier forms of the birth control pill. We saw in the video we watched about the Pill that the initial version of the pill that was introduced was immensely popular and prescribed like candy (first being tested on Mexican women, which opens up a whole new moral discussion); although marketed as a new miracle drug, no mention was made of the risks until later, when women began to suffer serious health effects from taking the pill. While I think that an HPV vaccine is a positive step, there should not be such a rush to mandate it for the entire population, when negative effects may still emerge in those who have already been vaccinated.
The point made in the Canadian article about men and the HPV vaccine was interesting; it is true that vaccinating men would have an indirect positive effect on women’s health…why is this vaccine solely a woman’s responsibility? I am not sure about the actual scientific differences between men and women in this regard–maybe it’s something I missed in the reading. Does anyone else have a clearer idea?
oops, sorry I just posted without a name…here goes again.
These readings about Gardasil and the controversy that surrounds its distribution come at an interesting time; I just watched a film called “Big Bucks, Big Pharma: Marketing Disease and Pushing Drugs” for another class that looked critically at the US drug industry. It has a definite liberal bent (which I’m okay with) but it was a really interesting film to watch–it’s available at the course website, http://www.comm387.com/exam2.htm under “Required Films.”
Anyway…a lot of what was said in the readings for this week about the HPV vaccine seemed really in line with the criticisms of the drug industry mentioned in the film. For example, the article about the HPV vaccine in Canada noted that despite extensive media hype, no clinical trial evidence has actually been given for the HPV vaccine. One thing I remember from the film was that when new drugs are introduced, they don’t have to prove they’re any more effective than an existing treatment in order to be approved–they only have to prove themselves more effective than a placebo.
Much of the popular support of Gardasil comes from its extensive advertising; commercials for the vaccine show happy, healthy women living great lifestyles. This method is the standard for most drug advertising; it is the lifestyle, not the health outcome, being campaigned for. The clearly professional and expensive nature of the advertising makes me wonder how much of the motivation is improving women’s health, and how much is for drug companies to make a profit. Another point from the film: while direct-to-consumer advertising has gotten more and more common, most drug promotions are aimed at doctors. Doctors who are approached by drug representatives, sometimes being given gifts or other methods of persuasion, might be significantly more likely to recommend a vaccine or drug to a patient.
Ultimately I think an HPV vaccine is a good idea, and I agree with the call for mandating the vaccine for preteen girls. The opt-out clause would allow parents who were morally or religiously opposed to preserve their freedom of choice; the majority of parents, who would probably not object, are also not too likely to go out of their way to get their children vaccinated if the vaccine is something controversial and not a common practice. Mandating the vaccine would be very effective in getting parents who are on the fence or indifferent to vaccinate their children against HPV. I have only one qualm: since the vaccine is still relatively new, I can’t help thinking about past examples, such as that of earlier forms of the birth control pill. We saw in the video we watched about the Pill that the initial version of the pill that was introduced was immensely popular and prescribed like candy (first being tested on Mexican women, which opens up a whole new moral discussion); although marketed as a new miracle drug, no mention was made of the risks until later, when women began to suffer serious health effects from taking the pill. While I think that an HPV vaccine is a positive step, there should not be such a rush to mandate it for the entire population, when negative effects may still emerge in those who have already been vaccinated.
The point made in the Canadian article about men and the HPV vaccine was interesting; it is true that vaccinating men would have an indirect positive effect on women’s health…why is this vaccine solely a woman’s responsibility? I am not sure about the actual scientific differences between men and women in this regard–maybe it’s something I missed in the reading. Does anyone else have a clearer idea?
I think this particular topic affects us (our generation/our age group) the most out of any of the topics presented thus far. I know for a fact that for these particular subjects, a high school health class doesnt cut it as far as sexual health goes. To start, sexual health doesnt just mean the “absense of disease”, but has become more broad and all encompassing to include aspects of the relationship itself, personal sexual health, and personal agency to name a few. I think we all know a friend who has been “burned” by a one night stand, or who had never had an STI screen after multiple partners, or who had never heard of Gardasil. Its not that the information is not substantial enough to be brought to classrooms, and its not that the jury is still “out” on exactly how prevalent STIs are in our society today. The issue at hand seems to be that this country would rather omit any sort of comprehensive sexual health course at schools because they fear it would promote sexual activity. I dont know about oyu but it seems to me that this is also similar to the needle exchange example i have used before- those who want to shoot up IV drugs will, and those who dont, will not begin to simply because they have clean needles at their disposal- i believe the same goes for this issues- if ANYthing, arming young girls with knowledge will keep them from unknowingly putting themselves at risk. I was speaking to a friend the other day and we were talking about the simple fact that..well…things arent so simple- to us at least ( maybe its the major haha) one night stands and risky sexual behavior just isnt worth something that 9 times out of 10 you either dont remember, or didnt enjoy. The answer though…is simple- educate early and accurately: no scare tactics and no fake stats- just plain facts: different STIs, their cause, prevalence, short and long term effects, transmission routes,preventative measures, and resources.
HPV where do I begin. This topic has gotten somewhat personal within the last few months to me. I see how many girls a day come in for their 1st,2nd,or last shot. I have spoken to friends and when its almost like finishing a marathon! Yes it was painful, it was a long time coming, we are glad we did it and…most likely…our lives are better because of it. My uncles and his family came up to visit ours for Thanksgiving, and it just so happened that i was stuck in the car with her on the way back from Boston, and yes, she asked me if i had gotten it. Now, keep in mind that she was half in the bag, but i almost take it as a good thing because she spoke more openly about how she felt. She looked at me with disgust when i said that i had and that most, if not all of my friend had, were currently, or had appointments to get the shot as well.Now, i understand the skepticism that some experience with this so called “wonder vaccine”, but to be honest, i dont want to risk not taking it- i am too concerned with this issue to not try it. We have come a long way in medicine, and i just hope that research is continued and perhaps the vaccine works, and maybe it doesnt, but at least we are one step closer to creating one that does. ANYWAY, my auntwent on to say that Texas was out of line and that they would have to kill her before they made a shot mandatory. I laughed because she knew nothing about the vaccine- she called it “HVV” and had no idea what it stood for, how many strains it was, or how common it was. To make a long story short, im pretty sure that i convinced her that although it is her choice to do what she believes to be best for her 14 year old daughter, that this vaccine has hugely helped women to combat something that they were almost incapable of preventing when women are so much more affected, and yet so much less informed. Though i believe wholeheartedly in personal rights, I think Texas has something here- at least they hold women’s health in higher regard than potentially “putting ideas into young girls heads”- Come to think of it…. I cant think of any..
On the schedule is says that this week we are talking about midwifes and women as healers. I did those readings, so I guess I will post on that. Hope this isn’t a problem. But I think midwifes are kickass and we should talk about them!
Midwifes and Women as Healers
Through my volunteer work and study of women’s health I have met several women who are Certified Nurse Midwifes, and young women who hope to pursue that degree. I think that midwifery is awesome and people should be able to chose alternative forms of birth. Midwifes give women more choice as to birth options and also try to fulfill women’s emotional needs in birth, not just physical needs. One midwife described to me how she felt that midwifes were much more gentle with patients than doctors. She said the minute anything was unusual or even just for the sake of ease, doctors would prescribe a C-section. She felt that they were a bit knife happy. She said she knew ways of preparing the vaginal opening to prevent tears that need stitches. She works with a group of midwifes in Northampton, who travel to do their work, and many do work at Cooley Dickinson (so not in the patients home but still with a midwife). I think that midwifes are important because they give women a greater range of choice, during one of the most important times in their lives, birth. This midwife also talked about water births, tub births, where the whole delivery takes place in a large tub. I would like to learn more about water births.
I had a class where we discussed women’s health today and over the centuries. It was a bio-cultural anthropology class. We talked about women as healers, nurses, doctors, and midwifes throughout history. One thing that I found fascinating was that women were considered healers in many native American cultures, they called them medicine women. There women were knowledgeable in all women’s health issues, were midwifes, and herbalists. As time progressed men in the tribe wanted to become healers as well. However their cultural stereo type of women as healers and medicine women, made things more complicated. The native American medicine men would actually dress up as women to perform their medicinal work, fulfilling the role of the medicine woman. This also shows how gender was perceived in these cultures.
Something that has caught my eye in the readings for this week about midewifery is the cycles it seems to take in its population. In “Sisterhood and Professionalization: A Case Study of the American Lay Midwife” the different types of midwifes are discussed briefly but the main focus is of course on the American lay midwife. The article mentions that lay midwifes in American came into existance in the 1960’s when some people were deciding to take a more wholistic, health concious approach to their lifestyle. I thought this was interesting because of the fact that midwifes in general have been around forever. The most knowledge I have of midewifery comes from the “Granny” who was and in some cases still is a promenant figure in the black community. The granny referes to a black woman who is only trainned to be a midwife through apprenticeships and through her pers. These women do not usually become midwifes until they are much older and there children have grown, as is the case with Mattie from “Thank you Jesus to Myself: The life of a Traditional Lay Black Midwife”. In this article Mattie is asked at what age she began being a midwife and her answer is somewhere in her fifties, and that she worked to assist other midwifes for 7 to 8 years before that. The American lay midwife has different origins than the cultural midwifes that practice in rural, poor areas. The American lay midwife, we learned, is more likely to practice in different locations and travel around while the granny usually had one community that she would support. The American lay midwife will only work in the home and is often unlicensed. There are midwifes in the U.S. who are licensed who work in the home, but they can also work in serperate birthing centers or hospitals.
CNM are becoming very popular today in America, especially in areas like Western Mass. where families are very liberal. There are multiple independant birthing centers located in western mass. that are run only by CNM. Often these birthing centers are across the street or just down the road from a hospital for back-up in case the birth turns into a serious problem The CNM are being chosen more and more because of the shift today towards a personalized, comfortable birthing area. CNM differ from doctors in many ways other than their medical training and knowledge. Many CNM can actually do almost everything that physicians can do because they do have many years of training. However, if you have a CNM he/she will stay with you for your entire birhting experience, from start to finish. CNM are with you when you get to the birthing clinic until the hour you give birth to your child, regardless of the length of the pregnancy. This can not be said for physicians today, who will leave you in the middle of your birth if their shift is over and they will pass you along to the next doctor. Of course not all physicians do this but they all have the option. Another major difference with CNM’s are that they support a natural birthing process, which includes walking around, sitting on a ball, giving birth standing up, water births, the support of family memembers at all times and much more. In private birthing centers women are not restricited to a bed and their family memembers are allowed to support them and be with them, not limited to one or two like in a hospital.
After reading through the articles as well as the blogs, it is amazing to see the variety of experiences regarding the HPV vaccine as well as people’s opinions regarding the topic. Specifically in regards to Autumn Rock’s blog, it is both surprising and disturbing to think that people don’t ask questions before receiving vaccines, which I believe is due to the trust that many people place in the hands of doctors. One of the main lessons that I have obtained from this class is to look at healthcare critically, especially in regards to women’s health, since it seems from the experiences of our classmates as well as friends and family, that women are many times the target of medical experimentation.
After I initially read these articles, I went home to my family in Connecticut and ended up talking to my grandparents and aunt about the HPV vaccine. After a very heated discussion, it seemed that my ideas regarding the HPV vaccine where seen as an attack on women, which surprised me. My main point when discussing this issue with my family was not that the HPV vaccine is a bad idea, but rather that it is essential to look at the vaccine critically dealing with the objectives of the vaccine as well as why it is targeted at women and not men. My aunt who worked for planned parenthood was completely for the vaccine. She believes that as long as you are eliminating the likelihood of spreading the disease and having one less person with the disease, then having either a mandatory vaccine or making it more readily available is a great thing. My grandparents brought in their perspective in regards to other diseases and vaccines during their generation. Since my grandmother was sick with scarlet fever as a child, she strongly supports vaccines. I believe that this viewpoint is common among their generation, after seeing what disease can do to people and having vaccinations available is a wonderful advancement.
After discussing these issues with my family, it was wonderful to gain a different perspective that I had not thought about before talking with them. This simple act of communication is the best tool in not only understanding where people are coming from, but also educating yourself and others on challenging topics. That is why I strongly believe that the best method to eliminating or decreasing a disease such as HPV, is by talking about these issues and educating each other in order to develop our own truths, rather than being dependent on doctors for all of our information. This class has been a wonderful tool to develop our ideas about these topics and by discussing with my fellow classmates, I always walk away with a new perspective.
Overall, I think that the best tool that we have out there is education and by communicating and challenging these issues like the HPV vaccine, it will promote awareness among women and lead to more educated decisions, whatever those may be.
in response to pinkgrl6:
i’ve gotten an HPV vaccine too. but i made the decision myself, with knowledge of what it is and what it is suppose to protect me from. i don’t think it’s a positive thing to vaccinate young girls and hope that they won’t be aware of what they are receiving the vaccination for!!! i think one of the important things we have to work to instill in young girls’ minds is the idea that they have to take charge of their health, and that it is never too young to do so. in addition, i think we forget how much a young girl CAN comprehend at that age. i know at the age nine, i understood what sex was, i understood what HIV/AIDS and other STDS were… i was lucky, many don’t understand those things at such a young age… but that needs to change. as i mentioned in class, at the age 13 i was diagnosed with diabetes and i had to learn how to administer insulin via injections four times a day. i had to learn about nutrition and i had to learn how to adjust my doses according to the day, without consultation with a doctor. i think that if a 13 year old can be given such responsibilities, it is in the scope to give a nine year old girl responsibility over whether or not she wants a vaccine.
i am an advocate for the vaccine as long as the person individually makes an educated decision to receive the vaccine. i am not for mandatory vaccination!!! this vaccination only improves one;s chances of not getting infected with HPV 16, 18, 6 or 11 … BUT there are over 106 strands of HPV… 20 to 30 of them have been linked to cancer. therefore, vaccinating everyone won’t solve anything. it will improve things a little- but only if vaccination comes with education. i don’t think HPV is going away any time soon. plus, someone who has an HPV infection has a 0.0004855% chance of it “causing” cancer. if we are so worried about the links between HPV and cancer… and possible vaccinations available… i think we should ban cigarettes and black hair dye. someone has a greater chance of getting lymphoma from dying their hair black (black hair dye has a strong correlation to lymphoma) than from getting cervical from HPV.
here are some facts:
most people are diagnosed with cervical cancer between the ages of 35-60. the average age of diagnosis is 58. it is EXTREMELY RARE that anyone have cervical cancer before 30. if someone has CELL CHANGES due to HPV they call is displasia, but it isn’t cancer. these cells have the potential to become cancerous and if they are invasive they must be removed. sometimes, this removal procedure is VERY INVASIVE…. !!! i think this is an extremely emotional and stressing period for a woman. in addition, i don’t think docs make this process any less stressful. my friend was diagnosed with HPV 16 two summers ago. she had to have invasive surgery that left her unable to have children. this was a really depressing time for her and she felt like a social leper. she felt really isolated and alone and she had no one to talk to, besides me. i think we need to make it more easy for women to communicate about their experiences with STDS. there is so much stigma attached to having an STD that women feel uncomfortable about talking about it with others in fear that they will face social consequences due to the stigma of STDS. i think we need to start talking about STDS openly so as that is becomes less of a taboo subject.
another fact: 1 in 4 young adults in America have HPV. 1% of sexually active adults in America have genital warts. only an estimated 9,700 new cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed each year in the US and 500,000 worldwide. 20 MILLION NEW CASES OF HPV ARE DIAGNOSED EACH YEAR IN THE US. we need to confront HPV, access to health care so women can get annual pap smears, and stigma related to STDS. between 1955 and 1992 the rate of new cervical cancer fell 74% mainly due to the increase in screening through pap tests. this shows that education and access are critical in reducing the prevalence of cervical cancer. i think the HPV vaccine is a good tool of defense but shouldn’t be considered the “save-all-device” that it is advertised as. if you want to be “one less” practice safe sex and get an annual pap smear.
In synch with Star24 and Floyd I feel concerned about the HPV vaccine becoming mandatory for school. In the Canadian Women’s Health Network’s document their statements clearly defend the insufficient study of this new vaccine and give a guideline on how to safely address the effectiveness and efficacy of it. The short-term priority guideline of action for the government was great and I liked the way that they began and ended the document, their thankfulness “We unhesitatingly appreciate government interest in women’s health.” Legal Momentum’s document seems to me that is mainly looking at who will profit from making this vaccine mandatory, there is a lot of money to be made here and no sound evidence of it’s safeness and effectiveness. They say “…young women get the vaccine when it is most effective-well before their fist exposure to HPV.” How is this the “most effective” when the vaccine is only effective for sixty months? Fund more research to find out how safe it is for our young children, there is clearly not sufficient study and more than sufficient enthusiasm to be launched! The main purpose here is to protect ourselves, our women, our daughters, we have to push as a whole for a thorough study, hell isn’t this the US, country that spends the most in health care (1.9 trillion a year)?
This weeks reading as most reading have been very knowledge rich and a very useful tool for the U.S.A population, specially the young population which are the ones whom are highly affected by these chronic sexually transmitted infections. I also my self have found that the readings that were most mind-tearing were the both HPV readings.
One thing that struck me most about the reading, in particularly is the mandatory idea for HPV vaccination. Even though stdudies have shown that vaccinating girls for HPV shots in their early teens will prevent a lot of deaths in the U.S.A, i still think that this should be an individual choice. I know vaccination is great, but its also placing extra things into our bodies that we dont even know about for sure. Even though scientis say that the vaccine is a harmless protein of the virus, to me my self, you never know. Another aspect of it, is that there are plenty strains of the virus, i think about a hundred or more, and the vaccination protects for only two strains. I think 16 and 18 are the HPV strain that the vaccination protects us agaisnt which are the most common cause of cervical cancer, but i dont think there has been yet enough research into this area. To me, until then, there has been further research into many other different strains of the virus which can maybe also cause cervical cancer and many other cancers, then i would be “okay this is salvation”.
I am not agaisnt the HPV vaccination at all, but i just think we are over-estimating things sometimes. Specially these days in this capitalist society, phaurmaceutical companies and manufactures are coming up with plenty of things so they can make market and profit out of people, without the product being “a glory”. In the U.S.A everything that recently comes up, people make such big emphasis about it,such as the case of the invetion of Depoevora birth conrol, which was later discovered to be hazardous to our health.Finally, the HPV shot to me should still be under investigation, wether they going to make it better not only to protect agaisnt two strain of viruses, so until then i dont think it shoud be mandatory…because that placing everyone at risk and also treating everyone as ginny pigs.
Last year in my Peer Health class I learned alot about HPV and was educated on the vaccine. Although I was educated on it, the first time I realized how big of a issue HPV wasS was when I was working at a tanning salon last year and I was working with 4 girls who were talking about how they ALL had HPV. This was before I learned about it in class and I didn’t even know what it was.Every girl I worked with but me had it ? Then a very close friend of mine confided in me that she too had HPV. Since then numerous of my friends have gone and gotten the vaccine and others have appointments to get it. I am not sure if I will receive the vaccine yet seeing as I haven’t been to my yearly check up yet.
I believe in a person’s right to make their own decision in regards to medicine, yet A Call for Mandatory Vaccination makes a good point when they say that if the vaccine was mandatory then the government would have to pay for it. I remember in Peer Health they were saying that Health Services was offering the vaccine for free, then stopped, and was charging full or deducted price.
THe fact that half of the 80% of women who get HPV are aged 15-25 is out of control! It goes back to the argument of awareness in young ladies about yearly exams and the importance of pap smears. If a girl feels uncomfortable going to a gynocologist, they should think about how uncomfortable they will be when they one day find out they have HPV and need to go back and forth to the doctors to make sure everything is what it is supposed to be, like my friend who has to go to the doctors all of the time now.
As far as the vaccine being available as early as 9 years old I think parents get intimidated by already imagining their precious little girls having sex. BUT like the articles say is that to be most effective you need to get the vaccine before you become sexually active.
Abstinence being the cure of HPV is rediculous and if conservatives and religious people want to be against HPV they have to go to sleep at night ok with the fact that many women who could die from HPV could have been saved with the vaccine and didnt because they were against.
I think there needs to be more research into Gardasil before it can be made mandatory, but if what studies are saying is true and the vaccinne can do more good then bad I think parents and young women should do their own research and decide for themselves.
Like a few of the previous bloggers, I also fall on the side of concern for mandating the HPV vaccine or even recommending it to all young girls. I found the article from Legal Momentum rather disturbing in how it completely watered down both the arguments for and against the HPV vaccine. The only opposition presented was from the conservative right, which all of the probable readers of the article would likely disdain. There was no clear presentation of the very real concerns surrounding the vaccine, and this omission I believe is representative of the tendency to fail to inform women of their choices in reproductive health.
On the other hand, I felt the Canadian Women’s Health Network did an excellent job in outlining the concerns surrounding the HPV vaccine. One of the issues they bring up, which I find most concerning and relates to the previous article, is the lack of objective information presented to women in making informed choices about receiving the vaccine. It is marketed in the United States as the “cervical cancer vaccine”, which is entirely misleading. The vaccine of course will likely lead to a reduction in cervical cancer cases, but vaccinating against a virus that can cause cancer and appearing to claim to vaccinate against the cancer itself are two very different things. Whereas many forms of cancer cannot be predicted or averted to any significant degree, cervical cancer caused by HPV infection can. And although protected intercourse is not 100% effective against HPV transmission, the likelihood of acquiring HPV can still be greatly reduced through the use of condoms and even when present its potential pre-cancerous cellular changes can often be detected and removed.
To me, much of the choice in getting the HPV vaccine comes down to a personal cost-benefit analysis, and since I fall on the side of believing it is not in my best interested to receive the vaccine, it concerns me when it is pushed as a universal good thing for women. In the presence of solid sexual health education and women’s health services, the HPV vaccine offers only a small benefit to an individual women. The potential complications of the vaccine, such as a failure to get a needed booster and infection at an older age, may outweigh that small benefit for many. The “quick fix” presented by the vaccine is only beneficial in the context of our poor sexual health education in the U.S. and a lack of reliable and accessible health services for many groups of women.
In light of all this, I think there are many women who could greatly benefit from the vaccine and who might consider the benefits they receive in avoiding cervical cancer to outweigh potential risks. Where many women in the United States may benefit from personally choosing to be vaccinated, I think the majority of the women who would benefit most live outside the United States and will likely never have the opportunity to receive the vaccine. It’s in areas where there are little to no women’s health services, where women go without the early detection of Pap tests, that there often exists high rates of cervical cancer. In these cases, I feel the cervical cancer vaccine may be very appropriate, and if I personally had very little access to barrier protection and could not receive annual Pap tests, I would most certainly wish to have the option to be vaccinated.
But, in the context of the United States, I do not feel I would want my daughter to be forced to receive a vaccination that would potentially protect her so little when the unknowns surrounding it are so great. I would feel it was a personal decision for her – as would her decision be to become sexually active, to choose her partners and her preferred method of protection. If she would want to manage her risk through prevention and early detection alone, I believe that should remain her choice, and that the main job of the public health infrastructure would be to make choices available and affordable, and give information freely and objectively, but not force potentially unnecessary vaccination.
Wow…I just read through the majority of the blog entries and my head is spinning. People have a lot of different, but wonderful opinions. I’m still trying to collect my thoughts about my feelings towards HPV. It is my understanding that HPV is a fairly asymptomatic STI, especially in women. This is what makes it easy to live with HPV, not even know it, and go on to develop cervical cancer in the future. I am not as knowledgable about HPV and the vaccine as I feel I should be.
On a more general note, STIs can be managed and can be treated, but they are still a scary thing to deal with. Especially when an individual is unaware that they have an STI, they are not aware of how the infection is affecting their reproductive organs, overall health, and later fertility. I feel that STIs and many matters of reproductive health are not considered as important as health problems that can visibly be identified…such as chest pains, breathing problems, or a contagious disease. Personally, I sometimes do not pay as much attention to my reproductive health as I should. It is a private issue, and if you do contract an STI or have reproductive health problems…it becomes difficult to share these problems and not feel bad about yourself.
In my eyes, we all want to avoid STIs for our overall health. But if someone gets an STI, they should not be stigmatized ( EDUCATED INSTEAD) or thought of as a careless, “dirty” person…because certainly this is not the case in the majority of situations. I think that we all need to be aware of the way we speak about STIs in a casual, public setting…such as with our friends. We all know the slang terms for STIs( The clap, The clam, Herpsters) and even though we’re joking…I think these terms can be very hurtful for those who have STIs. Just something to be more aware of.
On another note, I have not yet received the HPV vaccine. My gyno gave me some literature on the subject, but I have not really researched it in depth (again this is an example of how reproductive health issues can be put on the back burner). I know that this is a hot topic and many friends that I know are in the process of getting their HPV vaccine shots. But I wanted to know what I’m getting into, and not do it simply because there was a large movement to get the HPV series of shots.
The article entitled ” HPV, Vaccines, and Gender: Policy Considerations” really got me thinking. The testing of Guardasil does not appear to be as meticulous as I would hope for, especially if this is something I will be putting in my own body. It is still a new vaccine, so I am concerned about long-term effects of this “vaccine”…is it definetely safe? Will there be side-effects we slowly begin to find out about within the next five or ten years?
I feel that the testing and marketing of this new vaccine were too rushed and not thorough enough for my own preferences. Also, to recommend this vaccine beginning at age 9 is a big step. According to the article, relatively few young girls were enrolled in the larger clincial trials of Guaradsil. The youngest ones were only followed for about 18 months. This time period is not long enough to truly see what kind of effects the vaccine has on such a young girl’s body. And I know that, there has to be many checks and balances in place in order for Guardasil or any vaccine to be approved…but I am still a bit uneasy about this vaccine. I know that doing my own research on Guardasil will probably alleviate some of my concerns, but this article really made me think that Guardasil is not as ideal as it is displayed to be.
I think that along with receving Guardasil, people need to recieve continual information and education that simply receiving this vaccine DOES NOT removes all risk of contracting HPV. According to the “Policy Considerations” article, there are many high-risk strains of HPV that Guardasil does not protect against. People need to be told this, and this needs to be stressed in the discussion and promotion of Guardasil and similiar vaccines. Even if someone decides upon using the vaccine, regular screening and Pap smears still need to be present in the overall picture of reproductive health. The use of barrier methods and safe sexual practices can not go out the window, when one completes the series of HPV shots.
I feel that constant education for both women and men is important, when dealing with HPV or any STI. As long as women ( and men) do not think that Guardasil is the a sure-fire form of prevention, I am not completely against health care providers educating and suggesting this vaccine to their patients.
Also, I look forward to more vaccine research and development for young men and boys in this area. If we are vaccinating all these young girls and women, and men are not being vaccinated as well…we might not be making as much progress as we think. As with an sexual health issue, I think men need to be as much a part of the movement as women. Their reproductive health is just as important and I feel that all genders should have the opportunity to be knowledgeable and empowered about their sexual health and the options that are available to them.
Sorry everyone…I swear this is my last post…I just have a lot of thoughts on these issues. I want to comment on the article entitled, “Syndemics, sex, and the city”. I really enjoyed this article and liked the fact that it featured a local city (Hartford, CT). I think that this article is important because it shows all the social and cultural beliefs that can get in the way of the statistics and facts we are always presented with. We certainly have the information, but it is not always as easy as that.
Even if we have the knowledge and understand the risks, our personal judgments do not always coincide with staying as safe as possible, in a sexual health sense. When the participants were asked, it appeared that there was a high awareness of the need for STI/HPV prevention through condom use with casual sexual partners. Okay, so people know this…but there is there still a high incidence of STIs in Hartford.
What I got from this article is that, the pleasure or enjoyment of a sexual encounter is appreciated more, especially if people are living in poverty or very tough economic situations. Opportunities for personal enjoyment are few and far between, and that is why casual sexual encounters are fairly frequent. I’m not sure if this is the sole reason or even an accurate reason, but this is one thing I extracted from this article.
I liked hearing the men’s and women’s own words about their decisions and ways they decide if someone is “clean” or not. It was nice to hear real words that are used in everyday life, instead of more clinical, formal wording. I could definite relate to some of the sentiments these people had about sex and condom use.
As relationships progress, condom use is often abandoned because it signals a lack of trust or possibly even a lack of commitment to the relationship. The thinking is…why do we need to use protection, if neither of us is sleeping with anyone else (whether this is true or not). And in many situations, relationships and the level of sexual comfort move along quite quickly…therefore condom use may be forgotten after only a few sexual encounters.
I really think it is important to encourage and educate that condoms should be used every time…even when you have been with someone for a considerable amount of time. Using a condom can never hurt anything…it only is a beneficial thing. Also, to show people pictures of all sorts of people that may look “clean” or “safe”, but indeed have asymptomatic STIs…is a way to begin discussion about the myth that one can judge whether it is safe to sleep with someone simply by looking at them.
I think this article presents one of the major challenges of health education, especially related to sexual practices. People appear to listen and understand what the risks are and what is healthy/ what it not…but it becomes much more difficult when someone enters into an actual sexual situation.
First of all, let me begin with the fact that I have recieved the HPV vaccination. I went to my doctor in the summer two years ago for my back to school check up and was offered to get the vaccination. My doctor explained that it was new, what it protected against, and how it was related to cervical cancer. After quickly scanning the information she gave me, I agreed. Now, in hindsight do I wish I had done more personal research? No.
Despite the fact that the vaccination is new and research is still considered to be in early stages I have faith in the safely of it. This is mostly because I never really questioned any other vaccine my doctor reccommened. Now granted, the older I get the more aware I am of my health, especially my reproductive health, but this is the way I see it: I am a sexually active twenty-something attended a huge public university, these are the years I am most suseptible to being infected, and protecting myself it very important!!
The reason I feel comfotable with this reasoning is this: I think one of the main reasons that people are questioning this vaccine more than others is because of WHAT it is protecting against. Despite countless Public Health efforts, there are plenty of sexually active people that couldn’t tell you the first thing about HPV. Thats because in general, there is a air of silence surrounding tabboo or uncomgotable things such as HPV. I don’t think the staunch conservative politicians could question giving their children vaccines against a number of illness, but if you associate a vaccine with sexuality, there go the breaks.
Another aspect of the readings that was particulary interesting to me was the study of girls perinatally infected with HIV. First of all, it was interesting that the clinics that cared for this girls through their youth, are so inequipped to handle them once they reach an age where they may become sexually active. This is hugely importnant not only to efforts to eradicate the disease, but also vital to the overall health of these girls.
I think the Gardasil vaccine is definitely a huge step in the right direction to prevent four strains of HPV that can lead to cervical cancer. If women are able to have this vaccine paid for by their insurance I feel they should get it because as of right now, we do not know of any harmful side effects from this vaccination and it can only protect women. One thing that I find ridiculous is that some people feel getting the Gardasil vaccine may encourage young girls to be promiscuous and lead to an increase premarital sex, and honestly I can not even take this argument seriously. This reminds me of the controversy surrounding needle exchange programs where some people say that giving out needles will encourage intravenous drug use, while several studies have shown absolutely no increase in drug use, but actually an increase in the number of people who seek treatment. I think that if women are educated enough to get the Gardasil vaccine, then they are most likely concerned about their sexual health and these women will probably be even more careful when it comes to practicing safer sex. So far, I have gotten the first two shots of this vaccine, and I plan to get the final one when I got home for Christmas break. I think having all the commercials about Gardasil is a good idea because these advertisements are able to reach millions of women, and for me, constantly hearing about this vaccine on tv and reading about it in magazines really pushed to make an appointment for the first shot. One downfall of this vaccine is that it is extremely expensive, and if it comes down to paying school tuition or getting a vaccine, families are going to choose paying bills, and we still do not even know how the Gardasil vaccine is going to affect us in 25 years. Also, you have to get a series of three shots, and many women may be unable to make it to a clinic or hospital within this 6 month period so there are definitely limitations with Gardasil, but overall I am pleased with this new healthcare discovery. For me, getting this vaccine is empowering in a way because I made this decision myself and I really feel that I have control over my sexual health and it feels good to know that I am doing something that could possibly save my life.
STIs are really scary to me, and getting tested is even worse. I remember when I got tested for HIV at Health Services, I had to go back a week later and get my results in person and that week was agony. I can not even explain how anxious I felt before I got the results back because your mind starts to race and you think about all the times you wish you had used a condom, what your life would be like if you had AIDS, etc. With that being said, I really think that the UMass community as a whole needs to make better decisions about our sexual health and students need to be educated about these issues. Free condoms should be easily accessible for all students because most of us will use them if we can get them. I also think it should be mandatory for all students to be checked for STIs and HIV because this is a growing problem all across the country. I read somewhere that about 1 in 4 students have an STI, so basically one of the four girls living in my house may have contracted something at one point! Mandatory testing for STIs may be unrealistic because of the costs involved, but students need to be encouraged to get tested because this is serious stuff. I know that the last time I got tested for STIs I was nervous before I got the results back, but when I found out I was clean it was a huge relief and now I am extremely careful when it comes to sex and I will never again put myself in a position where I have to worry about whether I may have contracted something or not. One of the main reasons why I got tested for STIs was because I learned so much about sexual health in my Public Health classes and I became so anxious and nervous that I had to go to health services so I could relax and stop thinking about it everyday. In my opinion there is a stigma surrounding getting tested because some people think that you automatically have something if you get tested when this is obviously not the case. When I got tested at UHS I had to bring all my test tubes down to the lab, and while I was waiting in line, I felt like everyone was looking at me weird and that they knew I had just gotten tested for STIs so I felt a little self-conscious. When it comes down to it, even though waiting for the results from an STI test can be nerve-racking, getting tested is the only way to know you are 100% clean and in the end it can prevent you from further complications later in life, such as PID, ectopic pregnancies, and fertility problems.
I was really bothered when I asked a past boyfriend of mine to get tested for STIs and HIV. When I asked him, he flipped out and turned the situation around, asking if I had been with any other guys. I could not believe that this person who supposedly loved me was making such a fuss about something as simple as getting tested. He said that he would know if he had something and that there was no need for it. If two partners truly respect one another then there should be no argument about getting tested because people’s health is in jeopardy and I take my health very seriously. It made me very angry that my boyfriend protested getting tested so much when he could have passed something on to without knowing it, and I think was quite selfish of this guy. He then started saying that he did not want to get a swab in the tip of his penis, but I have no sympathy for this because women must endure much worse than an uncomfortable swab. One way to possibly make this situation more comfortable for both partners is to get tested together and then get the results at the same time because you can be there to support one another and work through this stressful situation with someone by your side.
Let me see, I have alot to say. Obviously, STDS and HIV/AIDS is a HUGE problem in our society- in any society. Humans are essentially sexual beings, therefore, I believe that sexual health will always be a profound topic in public health and in society. In addition, i think it is important to remember a great lesson from HIV/AIDS… in that, even if we eliminated all known STDS, new ones can appear in the future. therefore, we need to create comprehensive measures to prevent the spread of STDS, now and in the future. Of course, this boils down to safe sex. In the end, the terminology “safe sex” is juxtaposed because I don’t believe there is anything that constitutes absolutely 100% safe sex. And that doesn’t mean we should jump on the abstinence band wagon. What this means is that as a society we have to be realistic about how “safe” sex can get and what that means for society as a whole. Importantly, people must have access to to sex education and realistic sex education. I think promoting only abstinence is not realistic in any society.. because like I said, the human is a sexual being. I think the word “safe” in regards to sex needs to incoroporate all features of health, including: mental/emotional well-being, physical health, etc. Sex is as an act incorporates all portions of an individual that make us human and all those aspects need to be nourished positively.
One remark I must make, is that the health paradigm needs to move away from blaming a woman’s sexual life for her sexual health. Humans are sexual!!!! Most people in their life time will have more than one sex partner!!!! I am tired of reading disclaimers that say having more than one sexual partner predisposes you to STDS!!! Unsafe sexual practices predisposes you to STDS!!! People need to stop feeling guilty about their sexual preferences or sexual life just because the mainstream rhetoric implies that anyone who has ever had more than one partner is promiscuous. And i Hate the term promiscuous!!! The term promiscous is a term used by those in the main to attack what they see as unfit sexual practices. in my mind EVERYONE is PROMISCUOUS!!!
Next, in regards to HPV…. !!!! …. In the article on Syndemics i think one of the most important points was that women in monogomous relationships generally stopped using condoms after two months despite the fact that most of those women questioned the faithfulness of their partner! first, i want to say that i don’t want everyone to be suspicious of their partner… but even if your partner isn’t cheating- they could have contracted HPV previously and could exhibit no symptoms. therefore, when you may feel that a certain level of trust is reached in your relationship- and therefore condom use is thrown out the window, you don’t really know what is going on in concerns to their sexual health. I think people need to be more aware that most people with HPV are asymptomatic, and thus people should air on the side of caution!~!!!! in addition, there is no way to test men for HPV yet- thus, if a man has no symptoms there is no 100% guarantee that he doesn’t carry HPV… therefore, i think condom use is essential ALWAYS for the protection against STDS!!! the only time i would promote not using condoms is in the case where one was trying to start a family!
Another point i want to make is about STIGMA. STDS carry alot of social stigma which affect the health of persons with STDS. i lived with a girl for a year who had HPV. she often felt like a leper because her doctor told her she could not share things like a bar of soap with people she lived with or beverages. I’ve read that they are still studying the transmission of HPV through materials like towels and beverages… but she still felt like she needed to air on the side of caution. therefore, we would separate our bathing stuffs and i could always tell this affected her greatly. After she was diagnosed with HPV she broke up with her boyfriend because she didn’t feel like she could tell him or that he’d just dump her anyways. After that, she didn’t have any sexual relations for awhile because she didn’t want to give it to anyone else and she also didn’t want to tell alot of people for fear they would treat her differently. in addition, i heard alot of people talking about her behind her back… making statements like it was her own fault that she had HPV or that she must be a big slut because she has an STD…. i think we, as a society, need to change the way we view STDS. we can’t blame or socially oust people who have STDS, yet we do this daily. i think it is important to remember the 99.9% of the world has sex in their lifetime. by having sex just once you run the risk of contracting an STD. therefore, just because someone has an STD doesn’t make them a slut or a social pariah. we need to provide support to everyone, STD or no STD.
PS- please check out this website!!! i found it tonight and it is ABSOLUTELY GREAT!!!
http://www.scarleteen.com
the website is a great resource… i think everyone should know about it- and i guarantee you’ll have a REALLY FUN time learning about safe sex practices!!! there is even a section on VEGAN CONDOMS…
before looking at this website i never knew that MOST CONDOMS CONTAIN MILK!!! but if you’re vegan don’t fear, there are vegan condoms… Some brands of vegan, cruelty-free condoms are Condomi and Glyde condoms.
The topic of STD’s especially HPV is something that has an emotional effect on me for many different reasons. Therefore, the two articles about HPV, HPV Vaccine: A Call for a Mandatory Vaccine, and HPV Vaccines, and Gender: Policy considerations were the ones that affected me the most. I have read many articles that explain the vaccine and how it works, and why it works. I myself have gotten the HPV vaccine and I am happy I did. I do believe that it is important for young girls to get vaccinated and they should make it mandatory. When children go to the doctors they do not know any of the shots they are getting, why does it make a difference to give them this shot that could change their lives? All the child would have to know was that it is a shot to protect them from a virus. Also, there is no way children will let their sexual inhibitions go when they receive this shot, they will be so young they won’t even really understand! Hopefully, if we vaccinate our children early enough, this virus can be eradicated from the United States. However, to do this, I believe vaccinations should not stop there. The pharmaceutical world needs to come out with a vaccine to prevent males from contracting HPV. Even though they do not show signs of symptoms of HPV they still have it and still pass it on to women. Once this is accomplished, I believe HPV can be eliminated with the right education and right vaccination. Yes, of course there are some risks, but there are risks for ANY shot you receive. Is a mother not going to vaccinate their child for Polio because there is an extremely tiny chance they can develop the virus. A mother who would stop their child from receiving a Polio shot could get their child taken away from them. I believe that this should be enforced the same way.
One might wonder why I am so in favor of the HPV vaccination. My friend got diagnosed with cervical cancer the first time she went to a gynecologist when she was eighteen years old. Luckily, her doctors did catch it soon enough so she did not die or get extremely sick. However, there is a 50/50 chance she might not be able to have children. Of course as her friends we were shocked she never got a pap smear in her life until that point, but now at age 22 some of my friends still haven’t gotten one! I tell my friends the story about my friend and encourage them to go. A lot of my friends do not understand how easy it is to get HPV and how there are no signs or symptoms. My friends tell me “I would know if I had something wrong.â€, but you really don’t know you have something wrong 75% of the time. Like many of you I’m sure, I have had friends who developed HPV. When it was caught early (since they were getting pap smears every year), it went away on its own and did not give any of my friends anything to worry about, since they had a doctor watching their cells to make sure they did not change. However, if you never get a pap smear and you cells turn into HPV and them become malignant how would you know? I completely understand that some low-income women who do not have health insurance cannot afford a pap smear every year. That is why I believe gynecologist visits need to be covered under any insurance or paid for by the state. It is crucial to saving people’s lives! I have seen cervical cancer change one person’s life, and that is one too many for me.
I have researched a lot about HPV and the HPV vaccine in other classes and I have come to the realization that the vaccine is a necessity and should be provided for everyone. I have gotten the vaccine myself and I am very grateful that there has been enough research done to come up with a vaccine. I know many women die from cervical cancer and it is sad to even think it could have been prevented with an annual papsmear. I think it is horrible that women often die from cervical cancer because they cannot afford health care. This is why I think the vaccine should be mandatory and funded so that all young girls can receive it early before sexual activity. It is scary to think that you can have HPV without any symptoms and then find out you have cervical cancer. The statistics show that over 6 million Americans will get a new case of HPV in the year. I think that is enough to provide the vaccine for everyone if we have the ability to prevent such a bad virus. I agree with pinkgrl6 in that there should be a vaccine for men because men do not know they have the virus and are passing it on to women. I understand that to compromise with certain groups and affiliations there is an opt-out for parents to decide that their child should not get the vaccine. I think that the opt-out could cause problems too because many parents will deny their child from the vaccine because they believe in 100% abstinence. As explained in the reading, HPV Vaccine: a call for mandatory vaccination, groups claim that the vaccine conflicts with their-abstinence only message. I think that is obsurd because giving the vaccine isnt portraying anything, it is just preventing a girl at a young age from getting HPV. Much of the time abstinence only beliefs do not even educate young teens about prevention, so if they do decide to have sex they are more likely to be at risk. There are so many women getting infected and it is mostly due to lack of knowledge. In the reading “Syndemics, sex and the city,” it was surprising to see the different mentalities of the men and women in hartford, CT and the amount of unprotected sex with casual partners. I think it is obvious that certain populations in certain areas are more concentrated with life-threatening diseases. This means that there is a problem that needs to gain more attention. More funding and availabilty of prevention education and resources need to be at hand for the population. When interviewing the participants in CT, it was surprising to see so much infidelity. I feel that everybody has the choice to date as many people as they want but a lot of the sexual activity amongst them was unprotected. The participants talk about how they know their partner is being untruthful but still use no condoms because condoms mean lack of trust. It was also the norm that both the men and women thought in terms of “who is safe” rather than “which behaviors are risky.” There are so many other factors that need to be discussed with these participants rather than just giving them condoms and telling them to use them. Their social conditions and psychosocial factors are what shape their experiences. Social disadvantage is leading to so many other health risks and its not fair! It is not fair to judge an individual and say they are just irresponsible because there are so many social factors that contribute to causes of STDs.
I remember first learning about the HPV vaccination in one of my many public health classes and I remember becoming absolutely ecstatic. I remember thinking about the endless possibilities of a vaccination that could prevent women from contracting an STD, especially one that is known to cause cervical cancer. I also remember being extremely enraged by the massive amounts of opposition it was receiving from far right groups.
I, like Star, have done extensive reading on the HPV vaccination and also have come to the conclusion that this medical intervention is more helpful than harmful to young girls and adolescents. I think that it is preposterous for far right groups to say that by vaccinating young girls and adolescents, it is going to create them to become more promiscuous and give them the green light to go and have sex. That is like saying that once you get vaccinated for a tetanus shot; you’re going to run around stepping on rusty old needles. It’s just not going to happen like that.
I remember talking to my gynecologist about the vaccination and she too was also overjoyed. We also talked about the opposition that the vaccine was facing and I remember her bringing up an excellent point to the far rights belief that by vaccinating young girls it will make them more promiscuous. My gynecologist told me even if a woman waited until marriage to have sex, it could be highly likely that her finance could have contracted HPV at some point during his lifetime and pass it onto his wife. So even if women were waiting until marriage to have sex, they still could be contracting the virus, even if they remained abstinent for the duration of their single life. So should women just remain abstinent for their entire life?
Reading Syndemics, sex and the city: Understanding sexually transmitted diseases in social and cultural context, really hit home to me because I work at Hartford Hospital and I see the actual people in which this article addresses. Pretty much every single female who comes into the clinic is a minority and the majority of these women has had some kind of STD or STI or has a history of abnormal pap smears. It was extremely disheartening to read about the lack of faith that women have in their sexual partners and how they were afraid to commit or “catch a feeling†or fall in love and be monogamous with the men who they were already having sexual relations with. It also was very depressing to realize how many women are scared to ask their male partners to wear a condom for fear of losing the relationship. These women are literally risking their sexual health, just so that they will not have to be alone.
I believe that a massive public health intervention needs to come into effect not only for the city of Hartford, but also for cities worldwide. I believe that the results and findings of the prevalence of STDS in Hartford CT are equivalent to cities worldwide. STDS can seriously affect the quality of a person’s life and I believe that the public health community needs to enforce more comprehensive sexual education worldwide.
It is evident in reading the other blog entries this week that HPV is a major public health issue among women especially. In her blog, Sassy brought up the stigma that is attached to sexually transmitted infections, even extremely common infections like HPV. Unfortunately, as noted in many of the other entries, the burden of this stigma is disproportionately carried by women. This may be due to the fact that for most all but 2 strains of the HPV virus, there are no external symptoms, and for men, unless they are experiencing an outbreak of genital warts due to HPV, there is no testing procedure. Women on the other hand have the great pleasure of having annual pelvic exams and pap smears which will check for cervical changes due to HPV infection. So we often carry the burden of being the one “diagnosed†with HPV and perhaps feeling responsible to share this diagnosis with our partners. And as these readings reveal, obviously their partners carry the virus too! However, as noted in another blog, there is no way to trace HPV, so a woman who hasn’t been diagnosed and most men will not even be aware that they are carriers of the virus.
As we discussed last week, there are so many things tied up in pelvic exams, issues of embarrassment, discomfort, vulnerability, power, control and perhaps most relevant to this weeks readings, judgment. Unfortunately many women have felt judged by reproductive healthcare providers. Often these judgments are about women’s sexual behavior and decision makings including judgments about how women “should be†and what can happen or what they “get†if they stray from these acceptable codes of sexual behavior. In my own experience, I think just talking about HPV is helpful in debunking some of the ridiculous myths about HPV and other STI’s and the resulting judgments about these issues. I think that perhaps one of the most unfortunate results of a woman being diagnosed with HPV is the effect it has on her mentally and emotionally. How it effects her perception of herself and how it affects the choices she makes. I felt really sad reading that Sassy’s friend broke up with her boyfriend rather than telling him about her diagnosis with HPV. In my experience as a health counselor I heard many similar stories from women who were feeling ashamed of themselves for having a virus that estimates say 80% of the sexually active population will carry at one time or another! I think that dialogue about this virus outside of the dialogue started by the HPV vaccine is extremely important. Women talking with other women who have HPV, who have had repeated Pap smears and colposcopies and who have had cervical cancer and normalizing this experience will hopefully reduce the feelings of shame and guilt that women might feel because of HPV. Women and men need to understand how common HPV is.
In terms of the HPV vaccine, I think it is great that it exists and is available to women and I hope that the state and government are able to continue to make it available to women who want it for free. I am not sure how I feel about mandatory vaccination however. This past October there was a panel discussion on HPV at Umass. There were a lot of issues raised about mandating the vaccine, including how much money it will cost each state because if it is mandatory, the state has to pay for it, and also, how safe and effective is it? There are many things that are not known yet because it is so new. One issue is that experts don’t know yet if women will need boosters to maintain immunity. If they do, it is expected they will need them in 5 to 6 years from the first shot. This puts women who get the shot at 11 at 16 or 17, when most of them will start becoming sexually active. Does this vaccine create a false sense of security? Will it decrease the numbers of women who go for regular gynecological care which is important in other ways? Is it one more medical intervention that women, not men will be exposed to, and we do not know the effects down the line? Also, could money spent on mandating the vaccine be spent on other public health issues such as true health education in schools that would help educate women and men about HPV as well as other aspects of sexual health. I appreciate that the HPV vaccine is available, and I hope the dialogue about it continues.
I recently received my first of the three Gardasil shots and I when I mentioned it to friends, some thought it was a futile effort. I was already sexually active so how could it help me now? It’s important to note that Gardasil protects against the four most common strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer and genital warts. There is over a hundred strands of HPV so even though I am sexually active that doesn’t mean I have already come into contact with those four strains. I’m trying to protect myself the best way I know how and receiving Gardasil isn’t a futile effort.
Also, another important note is that women under 30 yrs of age who come into contact with HPV usually don’t contract the disease for life. They will be exposed and might even have abnormal pap smears but their bodies usually clear it up on their own. After 30 yrs of age, the body’s immune system isn’t as effective.
At the doctor’s office, before I received my shot for Gardasil, the nurse asked me if I had any questions. I asked how long this vaccine would protect me. She said the studies show at least 5 yrs but that they can give booster shots after that. She followed up my question with, “Wow, you were the first person to ever ask me that.” That shocked me, because she’s giving these shots on a daily basis and yet no one has asked that question?
I’m worried that women are viewing this vaccine as a life-long immunity instead of a short term protection method. I think the confusion comes from the fact that they’re describing Gardasil as a vaccine, a prevention method that should be given to girls when they’re younger with “the rest of the vaccines (i.e. MMR = Measles, Mumps, Rubella, DTaP = Diptheria, tetanus, pertussis, IPV = polio just to name a few common ones). The problem is that the rest of these vaccines usually give immunity for life or at least much longer than 5 yrs with a booster shot if necessary. Gardasil isn’t for life but people think it is because it’s talked about in the context of other vaccines. I think this is creating a false sense of security against HPV that Gardasil’s maker needs to make clear that they will need a booster and still use safe sex practices.
I’m hoping that a test for HPV comes out for men soon and also a vaccine for them as well against the disease. It’s hard to say if a person has it since it’s not like other STIs in that it can take a long time to show up on a pap smear. So the partner you got it from, might not be your current partner, but one from the past. This creates a lot of confusion and makes it even harder to protect others from getting the disease if you don’t know you’ve had it all this time while you were having unprotected sex with other people. That’s what makes this virus so dangerous, it’s it can remain undetected while it’s being transmitted.
Using condoms religiously (haha what an oxymoron) can’t even guarantee 100% protection against HPV as it can be transmitted through skin to skin contact so the surrouding area of the genitals is still dangerous. It definitely cuts down on the incidence of contracting the disease though.
However, I unfortunately related to some of the subjects in the Syndemics paper when they described condom use in long term relationships. Using a condom in the beginning of the relationship is expected and respected but after 1-2 months, using a condom can be seen as a gesture of mistrust of the other partner. Even after all the sexual education and health care practices I’ve studied, I still decide if a partner is “safe” or not by looking at their physical appearance and what kind of a background they came from. Are they dirty or clean? Do they sleep around or have only been in a few committed relationships? Do they come from a respectable family or do they seem sketchy? None of these factors can tell a person if their partner is “safe” or not. A partner could have only slept with one person and have an STI. It’s foolish of me when I realized I had been using these same haphazard standards to analyze my partners.
It seems that even if both partners in a monogamous relationship were tested for STIs and were given a clean bill of health, they could still have the undetectable HPV and pose a dangerous risk to the other partner.
I guess no sexual activity is the answer to keeping yourself completely safe but I know that myself and most other young adults out there aren’t willing to adopt that practice. I don’t think this makes me a self-destructive or irresponsible person, just a person who’s trying to make the best of a difficult situation. I won’t live in constant fear.
Sex is a very powerful thing; it makes people happy, it makes people angry, or sad or frightened, you name it. It can be looked at positively, or negatively, or both at the same time. It’s talked about a lot, maybe too much sometimes, or not enough when it really counts.
My family has never been open about sex. One time in high school while trapped in my mother’s car she asked me what kind of protection i was using, this was a premature question, seeing as I wasn’t having sex at that point. Lately she’s been on a huge kick about getting me to do the HPV vaccine. She doesn’t talk to me about birth control, only HPV. I think it has a lot to do with the media attention surrounding the vaccine. I hope that at the very least, the controversy surrounding the vaccine will inspire communication and conversation about safe sex between parents and children. I think something thats very important to consider in the debate about mandatory vaccination is the fact that most parents really have absolutely no, not even the slightest idea of what their children are up to. They may think their child isn’t sexually active, but in reality they are. Kids are becoming sexually active earlier in life, how can you blame them, our culture is so over sexualized. I don’t think it’d be ludicrous to vaccinate a 9 year old. Parents look at their children and see them as pure, so young, etc but in reality they could be sexually active and just not telling their parents (for whatever reason) so the parents think its insane to vaccinate their little baby girl. This isn’t all youth, but I’ve seen it.
I’ve been meaning to go and get the vaccine, I’ve just been too busy, poor excuse I know. But in the meantime I’ve been doing research about it. A friend of mine recently got an abnormal reading on her pap smear, she complained, saying she got the vaccine so she should have been protected. I told her the vaccine only protects against a few strains (of the many, many) ones out there, in addition the vaccine wouldn’t help if she had already been exposed or been exposed before the complete vaccination. I think a lot of people live under the premise that since they have the vaccine, they’re protected, which is a false sense of safety. This is similar to when people believe that just because they’re on the pill (and not using any condoms), they’re having safe sex. Not true. I’m currently in a heterosexual, monogamous relationship, and have been for the last year or so. This may be too much info for ya’ll, but whatever, I always use a condom when having sex. Not in fear of pregnancy, but more in fear of STI’s. I know he’s got a clean record, as do I, but I know that first of all, there is no HPV test for men. In addition to that, according to my knowledge, it’s possible to have been exposed to HPV and be a carrier, therefore being able to affect people, while not expressing symptoms/testing positive for it because it lies dormant. Also, it’s disturbing to me that the right groups use fear of getting cervical cancer, STI’s, babies, etc as a tactic to scare people away from sexual relationships. They see sex as threatening. People should be encouraging healthy, positive views of sexuality. Personally, I feel that viewing sex negatively has long-term adverse effects such as embarrassment about pleasure, STI’s, not being sexually fulfilled, negative body image, etc. I’ve also seen abstinence only education pushing non intercourse forms of sexual intimacy. But through these forms it’s still possible to contract HPV. This blows my mind because those same people don’t endorse the vaccination.
I believe all girls should be given the HPV shot, along with all other vaccines that are given out. I am currently in the process of receiving the three shots which are given over 9 months. Knowing that I am getting the vaccination, it do understand that it is not protection against every strain of HPV, so I therefore still have to take preventative measures. Also, knowing I am being vaccinated, I don’t think of sex and want to necessarily have it, so assuming that young girls will get the shot and then want to, is absurd.
I found the article “Syndemics, sex and the city: Understanding sexually transmitted diseases in social and cultural context†to be the most interesting, mostly because I could relate to the feelings that many of those interviewed had toward their sexual relations and the beliefs they had toward STD’s. It made me feel naïve with my own beliefs, especially one interviewee whom believed that because they had been with the same partner for a while, that condoms no longer had to be used… even though they had never talked to their partner about STD’s, and felt that abstaining from condoms would keep the relationship going. I feel sex is better with “skin-to-skin†contact, and on birth control I assume that my partner is clean if I’ve been with him for 3 months and haven’t seen any evidence or sickness. My boyfriend could be cheating on me (I trust him and hope he isn’t) but it is hard to ever really trust anyone or know their past. I feel the part of the article about “protection should not be used unless you intend on starting a family†is somewhat of a drastic measure. Assuming this being condoms, or protection other than pregnancy, is a hard concept. It might be somewhat risky but I feel that you cannot live life being fearful of acquiring an STD, if you have been with a partner for a while. That statement can be debated, but it is a person belief of mine. Living a promiscuous lifestyle is a personal choice, but I feel that many of the people that live like this, especially like in the article, are not making their choices because they believe it is their free will, but rather because they are un-educated in the STD department. Even though this article pertained to Hartford, CT., I feel that our community at UMass shares a lot of the same views. At the same time, we are much less aware of the rates of STD’s on campus. The fact that STD’s come with such a stigma, makes it a secret or embarrassment for those whom have contracted them.
I strongly agree with everyone else who has blogged so far in saying that the HPV vaccine is an EXCELLENT preventative measure for young women, and I think that it is important for all young women. Why is it that so many people are opposed to this vaccine? Is it because it has to do with an STI? I would say yes.. and I would be willing to say that other vaccines, such as booster shots that you get when you’re a kid don’t face as much criticism as this vaccine. I guess I just don’t understand what the problem is and why so many people are opposed. However, I don’t think that this HPV vaccine is the answer, or that just by getting this vaccine, you’re protected from all STI’s and blah blah blah.. That is obviously not true, and I think that education on the subject would prevent people from thinking this way.
In the Syndemics article, I thought that the part about using condoms when the relationship is new is totally true, and I thought it was a really good observation to say that as the relationship is broken in, condom use seems to decline. It is really easy when you’re in a committed and monogomous relationship to just not use a condom or another type of protection. I think this is a trend that needs to be broken, and that ones health and safety should be valued enough to be protected all the time.
I couldn’t agree more with Gazpacho in saying that right wingers who try to discourage sexual activity by using these scare tactics are just ridiculous. It is totally adding to people having negative views about sexuality.. and this is something that we’re trying to move away from as a society. For example, some are fighting for gay and lesbian rights, abortion rights, and a womans right to control her own body. Politicans and other powerful figures in society cannot be promoting these negative views of sexuality.. it just sets us back.
When I was home for Thanksgiving break, I got my third HPV vaccine, and I am so glad that I did. One thing I was really happy about was when my gynocologist was counseling me before I decided to get the vaccine, she was sure to remind me that getting this vaccine DOES NOT replace using condoms or protecting myself otherwise. She also pointed out that it only protects against 4 strains of HPV, and these are 4 that have been found to cause cervical cancer. I am really glad that she educated me on this beforehand, and she wasn’t simply trying to force me to get the vaccine. In other words, I never thought that getting this vaccine meant that I was forever protected against STI’s.. HPV in particular. I’m glad I did it!
Ever since Dr. Sievert came to lecture during our class about menopause, I have been thinking a lot about what she was getting at toward the end of her presentation about the need to bridge the gap between the social and physical sciences. This week’s blog entries are no exception to this notion of harmony in the sciences. Many of the above blog entries have mentioned the need to closely inspect and even redefine our definitions of sexuality under the American social constructs–what it means to be “promiscuous” or what it means to be infected with a sexually transmitted infection/disease/virus, and what are the ramifications of these labels on our own mentality, and how this affects the way in which we view the rest of society. These social labels and its repercussions on the field of public health are perfectly illustrated in the right-wing conservative argument against Gardasil: that if we vaccinate young girls this means they will become highly sexually active at a younger age, that somehow protecting them with a vaccine encourages “dangerous” sexual activity at a young age. This idea implies several things: one, that women, in general, are too stupid to make well-educated, smart and good choices in our everyday lives, that something as little as a vaccine is enough to influence us to the degree that we begin having sex with everyone and anyone without the slightest mode of protection/screening; two, that sex is innately an evil, bad act that we must protect all fragile young women from, that it is not merely another part of life; three, that a vaccine should be considered dangerous NOT because of shortage of research/information, but rather because it “condones” sex and apparently turns all 9-yr olds into crack-whores…(I could go on forever about the hidden agendas of right wing conservatives but I will stop right here)…I will say though, that it is SERIOUSLY unfortunate that this precious and vital dialogue about STIs/HPV/Gardasil is being mucked up with the RIDICULOUS/LUDICROUS arguments of right-wing conservatives, as McLovin intelligently pointed out already: “I think that it is preposterous for far right groups to say that by vaccinating young girls and adolescents, it is going to create them to become more promiscuous and give them the green light to go and have sex. That is like saying that once you get vaccinated for a tetanus shot; you’re going to run around stepping on rusty old needles. It’s just not going to happen like that.”
… BECAUSE the truth is, as several of the above bloggers have pointed out, there is a genuine, warranted concern of the the implementation of Gardasil in a nation-wide vaccination-type setting. However THESE concerns are due to legitimate arguments surrounding Merck, the advertising of Gardasil, the research behind it that could be EASILY argued to be deemed insufficient, (and I say legitimate because none of these concerns undermine/patronize women in general in any way, have the hidden agenda of any religious organization,and actually aim at trying to figure out how this vaccination might affect ALLLLL PEOPLE)… For instance, as SEVERAL of the above bloggers have mentioned, one main concern is the fact that the vaccine might lull women into a “false sense of security,” which is NOT comparable to the kind of “false sense” conservatives seem to be talking about where the vaccine somehow mobilizes 9-year olds to participate in unadulterated sex romps in the streets… Rather, as Gazpacho took the words right out of my mouth, it implies that “a lot of people live under the premise that since they have the vaccine, they’re protected, which is a false sense of safety. This is similar to when people believe that just because they’re on the pill (and not using any condoms), they’re having safe sex.” I’ve noticed this many times with my girlfriends who are on the pill and often choose not to use a condom because they feel that with the pill that are sufficiently protected, when the truth is that they are not protected against ANY STDs, but rather that they are living in the alternate universe where EVERYone is clean and std-free. In fact, many of these same young women use the “screening process” that AutumnRocks has described:
“Even after all the sexual education and health care practices I’ve studied, I still decide if a partner is “safe†or not by looking at their physical appearance and what kind of a background they came from. Are they dirty or clean? Do they sleep around or have only been in a few committed relationships? Do they come from a respectable family or do they seem sketchy? None of these factors can tell a person if their partner is “safe†or not. A partner could have only slept with one person and have an STI. It’s foolish of me when I realized I had been using these same haphazard standards to analyze my partners.”
The funny thing is, that even through all this debate, through all the ridiculous propaganda from right wing conservatives, and the dubious actions behind Merck and its research/advertising for Gardasil, THE SOLUTION exists in PRECISELY what we are doing with this blog/class. It may sound cheesy, but I am a FIRM believer in the fact that knowledge is power and that education is the key to good health. The same can be applied here, with our current situation with the commonality of HPV and the options we have been offered by the medical community. The KEY is to talk, discuss ALL of our options with our health care providers, with EACH OTHER, and figure out what is best for us all together, and as individuals after weighing the pros and cons. Personally, I am delighted that Gardasil exists but like many have already stated, I am concerned about a nation wide implementation after research that is SO recent, and to me, seems somewhat insufficient. I am also worried about what it means psychologically for a society that implements these vaccinations only in women, because it seems more and more that the weight of these dillemmas is falling squarely and injustly on the shoulders of women only. I am inspired by Gazpacho’s personal story of her relationship with her boyfriend and their condom use beaucse, as cheesy as this sounds, it gives me hope that we are moving away from all that is discussed in the syndemics article and moving more towards the equal sharing of responsibility concerning sexual health between men and women in heterosexual relationships. All in all though, I could not agree more with Feefer when she states: “I appreciate that the HPV vaccine is available, and I hope the dialogue about it continues.”
In regaurds to treating/preventing HPV, i found the article on making vaccination mandatory to be concerning. While this new Gardasil vaccine has been found to prevent 4 strains of HPV that can lead to cervical cancer, it is brand new, and who is to know of its side effects later on in life. To me, getting this vaccine based off of the sheer fact that a doctor is telling you to and not researching into how it could effect your own body, is equally as risky as not using any methods to prevent HPV. As the article talks about, 11 years old is a very young age to be giving Gardasil to girls. I understand the idea that vaccinating at an age young enough that there has been no sexual contact yet makes sense, but what are you having injected into your daughters body and would she want to be having it if she were old enough to make this decision for herself? Trying to make the vaccination mandatory is so wrong to me, it should be given based on a woman’s desire to have it, and if she does not feel it is safe or for her, than she should not be made to feel she should be given this treatment. On the contrary side, those who are pro-abstinence do not have the right approach towards HPV treatment/prevention either. EVery child is not going to remain abstinent and HPV can be contracted, and there should be something out there, such as Gardasil, for those who wish to have it, but also not be forced to get it. I know on a personal level, I received my first Gardasil shot in about april. I was at my doctors for a physical and i was told, “your mom wanted you to get this Gardasil shot” My mom hadnt said anything to me before i left the waiting room and went into the office (not on purpose) and I was a bit caught off guard. I had seen commercials, however, and I knew it was for HPV, which i also had heard is becoming very very common among girls I know and went to school with. Based off that alone, I asked no questions, and I got my first shot. I asked my mom about it and she had said ooh thats right your sister wanted to get that shot and so i told the doctor to give it to you as well, seems like a safe idea right. I probably should have been consulted, but I also did not speak up and ask a single question about what was about to go into my own body. I made sure I asked plenty of my own questions the next visit.
These readings about Gardasil and the controversy that surrounds its distribution come at an interesting time; I just watched a film called “Big Bucks, Big Pharma: Marketing Disease and Pushing Drugs” for another class that looked critically at the US drug industry. It has a definite liberal bent (which I’m okay with) but it was a really interesting film to watch–it’s available at the course website, http://www.comm387.com/exam2.htm under “Required Films.”
Anyway…a lot of what was said in the readings for this week about the HPV vaccine seemed really in line with the criticisms of the drug industry mentioned in the film. For example, the article about the HPV vaccine in Canada noted that despite extensive media hype, no clinical trial evidence has actually been given for the HPV vaccine. One thing I remember from the film was that when new drugs are introduced, they don’t have to prove they’re any more effective than an existing treatment in order to be approved–they only have to prove themselves more effective than a placebo.
Much of the popular support of Gardasil comes from its extensive advertising; commercials for the vaccine show happy, healthy women living great lifestyles. This method is the standard for most drug advertising; it is the lifestyle, not the health outcome, being campaigned for. The clearly professional and expensive nature of the advertising makes me wonder how much of the motivation is improving women’s health, and how much is for drug companies to make a profit. Another point from the film: while direct-to-consumer advertising has gotten more and more common, most drug promotions are aimed at doctors. Doctors who are approached by drug representatives, sometimes being given gifts or other methods of persuasion, might be significantly more likely to recommend a vaccine or drug to a patient.
Ultimately I think an HPV vaccine is a good idea, and I agree with the call for mandating the vaccine for preteen girls. The opt-out clause would allow parents who were morally or religiously opposed to preserve their freedom of choice; the majority of parents, who would probably not object, are also not too likely to go out of their way to get their children vaccinated if the vaccine is something controversial and not a common practice. Mandating the vaccine would be very effective in getting parents who are on the fence or indifferent to vaccinate their children against HPV. I have only one qualm: since the vaccine is still relatively new, I can’t help thinking about past examples, such as that of earlier forms of the birth control pill. We saw in the video we watched about the Pill that the initial version of the pill that was introduced was immensely popular and prescribed like candy (first being tested on Mexican women, which opens up a whole new moral discussion); although marketed as a new miracle drug, no mention was made of the risks until later, when women began to suffer serious health effects from taking the pill. While I think that an HPV vaccine is a positive step, there should not be such a rush to mandate it for the entire population, when negative effects may still emerge in those who have already been vaccinated.
The point made in the Canadian article about men and the HPV vaccine was interesting; it is true that vaccinating men would have an indirect positive effect on women’s health…why is this vaccine solely a woman’s responsibility? I am not sure about the actual scientific differences between men and women in this regard–maybe it’s something I missed in the reading. Does anyone else have a clearer idea?
oops, sorry I just posted without a name…here goes again.
These readings about Gardasil and the controversy that surrounds its distribution come at an interesting time; I just watched a film called “Big Bucks, Big Pharma: Marketing Disease and Pushing Drugs” for another class that looked critically at the US drug industry. It has a definite liberal bent (which I’m okay with) but it was a really interesting film to watch–it’s available at the course website, http://www.comm387.com/exam2.htm under “Required Films.”
Anyway…a lot of what was said in the readings for this week about the HPV vaccine seemed really in line with the criticisms of the drug industry mentioned in the film. For example, the article about the HPV vaccine in Canada noted that despite extensive media hype, no clinical trial evidence has actually been given for the HPV vaccine. One thing I remember from the film was that when new drugs are introduced, they don’t have to prove they’re any more effective than an existing treatment in order to be approved–they only have to prove themselves more effective than a placebo.
Much of the popular support of Gardasil comes from its extensive advertising; commercials for the vaccine show happy, healthy women living great lifestyles. This method is the standard for most drug advertising; it is the lifestyle, not the health outcome, being campaigned for. The clearly professional and expensive nature of the advertising makes me wonder how much of the motivation is improving women’s health, and how much is for drug companies to make a profit. Another point from the film: while direct-to-consumer advertising has gotten more and more common, most drug promotions are aimed at doctors. Doctors who are approached by drug representatives, sometimes being given gifts or other methods of persuasion, might be significantly more likely to recommend a vaccine or drug to a patient.
Ultimately I think an HPV vaccine is a good idea, and I agree with the call for mandating the vaccine for preteen girls. The opt-out clause would allow parents who were morally or religiously opposed to preserve their freedom of choice; the majority of parents, who would probably not object, are also not too likely to go out of their way to get their children vaccinated if the vaccine is something controversial and not a common practice. Mandating the vaccine would be very effective in getting parents who are on the fence or indifferent to vaccinate their children against HPV. I have only one qualm: since the vaccine is still relatively new, I can’t help thinking about past examples, such as that of earlier forms of the birth control pill. We saw in the video we watched about the Pill that the initial version of the pill that was introduced was immensely popular and prescribed like candy (first being tested on Mexican women, which opens up a whole new moral discussion); although marketed as a new miracle drug, no mention was made of the risks until later, when women began to suffer serious health effects from taking the pill. While I think that an HPV vaccine is a positive step, there should not be such a rush to mandate it for the entire population, when negative effects may still emerge in those who have already been vaccinated.
The point made in the Canadian article about men and the HPV vaccine was interesting; it is true that vaccinating men would have an indirect positive effect on women’s health…why is this vaccine solely a woman’s responsibility? I am not sure about the actual scientific differences between men and women in this regard–maybe it’s something I missed in the reading. Does anyone else have a clearer idea?
I think this particular topic affects us (our generation/our age group) the most out of any of the topics presented thus far. I know for a fact that for these particular subjects, a high school health class doesnt cut it as far as sexual health goes. To start, sexual health doesnt just mean the “absense of disease”, but has become more broad and all encompassing to include aspects of the relationship itself, personal sexual health, and personal agency to name a few. I think we all know a friend who has been “burned” by a one night stand, or who had never had an STI screen after multiple partners, or who had never heard of Gardasil. Its not that the information is not substantial enough to be brought to classrooms, and its not that the jury is still “out” on exactly how prevalent STIs are in our society today. The issue at hand seems to be that this country would rather omit any sort of comprehensive sexual health course at schools because they fear it would promote sexual activity. I dont know about oyu but it seems to me that this is also similar to the needle exchange example i have used before- those who want to shoot up IV drugs will, and those who dont, will not begin to simply because they have clean needles at their disposal- i believe the same goes for this issues- if ANYthing, arming young girls with knowledge will keep them from unknowingly putting themselves at risk. I was speaking to a friend the other day and we were talking about the simple fact that..well…things arent so simple- to us at least ( maybe its the major haha) one night stands and risky sexual behavior just isnt worth something that 9 times out of 10 you either dont remember, or didnt enjoy. The answer though…is simple- educate early and accurately: no scare tactics and no fake stats- just plain facts: different STIs, their cause, prevalence, short and long term effects, transmission routes,preventative measures, and resources.
HPV where do I begin. This topic has gotten somewhat personal within the last few months to me. I see how many girls a day come in for their 1st,2nd,or last shot. I have spoken to friends and when its almost like finishing a marathon! Yes it was painful, it was a long time coming, we are glad we did it and…most likely…our lives are better because of it. My uncles and his family came up to visit ours for Thanksgiving, and it just so happened that i was stuck in the car with her on the way back from Boston, and yes, she asked me if i had gotten it. Now, keep in mind that she was half in the bag, but i almost take it as a good thing because she spoke more openly about how she felt. She looked at me with disgust when i said that i had and that most, if not all of my friend had, were currently, or had appointments to get the shot as well.Now, i understand the skepticism that some experience with this so called “wonder vaccine”, but to be honest, i dont want to risk not taking it- i am too concerned with this issue to not try it. We have come a long way in medicine, and i just hope that research is continued and perhaps the vaccine works, and maybe it doesnt, but at least we are one step closer to creating one that does. ANYWAY, my auntwent on to say that Texas was out of line and that they would have to kill her before they made a shot mandatory. I laughed because she knew nothing about the vaccine- she called it “HVV” and had no idea what it stood for, how many strains it was, or how common it was. To make a long story short, im pretty sure that i convinced her that although it is her choice to do what she believes to be best for her 14 year old daughter, that this vaccine has hugely helped women to combat something that they were almost incapable of preventing when women are so much more affected, and yet so much less informed. Though i believe wholeheartedly in personal rights, I think Texas has something here- at least they hold women’s health in higher regard than potentially “putting ideas into young girls heads”- Come to think of it…. I cant think of any..
On the schedule is says that this week we are talking about midwifes and women as healers. I did those readings, so I guess I will post on that. Hope this isn’t a problem. But I think midwifes are kickass and we should talk about them!
Midwifes and Women as Healers
Through my volunteer work and study of women’s health I have met several women who are Certified Nurse Midwifes, and young women who hope to pursue that degree. I think that midwifery is awesome and people should be able to chose alternative forms of birth. Midwifes give women more choice as to birth options and also try to fulfill women’s emotional needs in birth, not just physical needs. One midwife described to me how she felt that midwifes were much more gentle with patients than doctors. She said the minute anything was unusual or even just for the sake of ease, doctors would prescribe a C-section. She felt that they were a bit knife happy. She said she knew ways of preparing the vaginal opening to prevent tears that need stitches. She works with a group of midwifes in Northampton, who travel to do their work, and many do work at Cooley Dickinson (so not in the patients home but still with a midwife). I think that midwifes are important because they give women a greater range of choice, during one of the most important times in their lives, birth. This midwife also talked about water births, tub births, where the whole delivery takes place in a large tub. I would like to learn more about water births.
I had a class where we discussed women’s health today and over the centuries. It was a bio-cultural anthropology class. We talked about women as healers, nurses, doctors, and midwifes throughout history. One thing that I found fascinating was that women were considered healers in many native American cultures, they called them medicine women. There women were knowledgeable in all women’s health issues, were midwifes, and herbalists. As time progressed men in the tribe wanted to become healers as well. However their cultural stereo type of women as healers and medicine women, made things more complicated. The native American medicine men would actually dress up as women to perform their medicinal work, fulfilling the role of the medicine woman. This also shows how gender was perceived in these cultures.
Something that has caught my eye in the readings for this week about midewifery is the cycles it seems to take in its population. In “Sisterhood and Professionalization: A Case Study of the American Lay Midwife” the different types of midwifes are discussed briefly but the main focus is of course on the American lay midwife. The article mentions that lay midwifes in American came into existance in the 1960’s when some people were deciding to take a more wholistic, health concious approach to their lifestyle. I thought this was interesting because of the fact that midwifes in general have been around forever. The most knowledge I have of midewifery comes from the “Granny” who was and in some cases still is a promenant figure in the black community. The granny referes to a black woman who is only trainned to be a midwife through apprenticeships and through her pers. These women do not usually become midwifes until they are much older and there children have grown, as is the case with Mattie from “Thank you Jesus to Myself: The life of a Traditional Lay Black Midwife”. In this article Mattie is asked at what age she began being a midwife and her answer is somewhere in her fifties, and that she worked to assist other midwifes for 7 to 8 years before that. The American lay midwife has different origins than the cultural midwifes that practice in rural, poor areas. The American lay midwife, we learned, is more likely to practice in different locations and travel around while the granny usually had one community that she would support. The American lay midwife will only work in the home and is often unlicensed. There are midwifes in the U.S. who are licensed who work in the home, but they can also work in serperate birthing centers or hospitals.
CNM are becoming very popular today in America, especially in areas like Western Mass. where families are very liberal. There are multiple independant birthing centers located in western mass. that are run only by CNM. Often these birthing centers are across the street or just down the road from a hospital for back-up in case the birth turns into a serious problem The CNM are being chosen more and more because of the shift today towards a personalized, comfortable birthing area. CNM differ from doctors in many ways other than their medical training and knowledge. Many CNM can actually do almost everything that physicians can do because they do have many years of training. However, if you have a CNM he/she will stay with you for your entire birhting experience, from start to finish. CNM are with you when you get to the birthing clinic until the hour you give birth to your child, regardless of the length of the pregnancy. This can not be said for physicians today, who will leave you in the middle of your birth if their shift is over and they will pass you along to the next doctor. Of course not all physicians do this but they all have the option. Another major difference with CNM’s are that they support a natural birthing process, which includes walking around, sitting on a ball, giving birth standing up, water births, the support of family memembers at all times and much more. In private birthing centers women are not restricited to a bed and their family memembers are allowed to support them and be with them, not limited to one or two like in a hospital.
After reading through the articles as well as the blogs, it is amazing to see the variety of experiences regarding the HPV vaccine as well as people’s opinions regarding the topic. Specifically in regards to Autumn Rock’s blog, it is both surprising and disturbing to think that people don’t ask questions before receiving vaccines, which I believe is due to the trust that many people place in the hands of doctors. One of the main lessons that I have obtained from this class is to look at healthcare critically, especially in regards to women’s health, since it seems from the experiences of our classmates as well as friends and family, that women are many times the target of medical experimentation.
After I initially read these articles, I went home to my family in Connecticut and ended up talking to my grandparents and aunt about the HPV vaccine. After a very heated discussion, it seemed that my ideas regarding the HPV vaccine where seen as an attack on women, which surprised me. My main point when discussing this issue with my family was not that the HPV vaccine is a bad idea, but rather that it is essential to look at the vaccine critically dealing with the objectives of the vaccine as well as why it is targeted at women and not men. My aunt who worked for planned parenthood was completely for the vaccine. She believes that as long as you are eliminating the likelihood of spreading the disease and having one less person with the disease, then having either a mandatory vaccine or making it more readily available is a great thing. My grandparents brought in their perspective in regards to other diseases and vaccines during their generation. Since my grandmother was sick with scarlet fever as a child, she strongly supports vaccines. I believe that this viewpoint is common among their generation, after seeing what disease can do to people and having vaccinations available is a wonderful advancement.
After discussing these issues with my family, it was wonderful to gain a different perspective that I had not thought about before talking with them. This simple act of communication is the best tool in not only understanding where people are coming from, but also educating yourself and others on challenging topics. That is why I strongly believe that the best method to eliminating or decreasing a disease such as HPV, is by talking about these issues and educating each other in order to develop our own truths, rather than being dependent on doctors for all of our information. This class has been a wonderful tool to develop our ideas about these topics and by discussing with my fellow classmates, I always walk away with a new perspective.
Overall, I think that the best tool that we have out there is education and by communicating and challenging these issues like the HPV vaccine, it will promote awareness among women and lead to more educated decisions, whatever those may be.
in response to pinkgrl6:
i’ve gotten an HPV vaccine too. but i made the decision myself, with knowledge of what it is and what it is suppose to protect me from. i don’t think it’s a positive thing to vaccinate young girls and hope that they won’t be aware of what they are receiving the vaccination for!!! i think one of the important things we have to work to instill in young girls’ minds is the idea that they have to take charge of their health, and that it is never too young to do so. in addition, i think we forget how much a young girl CAN comprehend at that age. i know at the age nine, i understood what sex was, i understood what HIV/AIDS and other STDS were… i was lucky, many don’t understand those things at such a young age… but that needs to change. as i mentioned in class, at the age 13 i was diagnosed with diabetes and i had to learn how to administer insulin via injections four times a day. i had to learn about nutrition and i had to learn how to adjust my doses according to the day, without consultation with a doctor. i think that if a 13 year old can be given such responsibilities, it is in the scope to give a nine year old girl responsibility over whether or not she wants a vaccine.
i am an advocate for the vaccine as long as the person individually makes an educated decision to receive the vaccine. i am not for mandatory vaccination!!! this vaccination only improves one;s chances of not getting infected with HPV 16, 18, 6 or 11 … BUT there are over 106 strands of HPV… 20 to 30 of them have been linked to cancer. therefore, vaccinating everyone won’t solve anything. it will improve things a little- but only if vaccination comes with education. i don’t think HPV is going away any time soon. plus, someone who has an HPV infection has a 0.0004855% chance of it “causing” cancer. if we are so worried about the links between HPV and cancer… and possible vaccinations available… i think we should ban cigarettes and black hair dye. someone has a greater chance of getting lymphoma from dying their hair black (black hair dye has a strong correlation to lymphoma) than from getting cervical from HPV.
here are some facts:
most people are diagnosed with cervical cancer between the ages of 35-60. the average age of diagnosis is 58. it is EXTREMELY RARE that anyone have cervical cancer before 30. if someone has CELL CHANGES due to HPV they call is displasia, but it isn’t cancer. these cells have the potential to become cancerous and if they are invasive they must be removed. sometimes, this removal procedure is VERY INVASIVE…. !!! i think this is an extremely emotional and stressing period for a woman. in addition, i don’t think docs make this process any less stressful. my friend was diagnosed with HPV 16 two summers ago. she had to have invasive surgery that left her unable to have children. this was a really depressing time for her and she felt like a social leper. she felt really isolated and alone and she had no one to talk to, besides me. i think we need to make it more easy for women to communicate about their experiences with STDS. there is so much stigma attached to having an STD that women feel uncomfortable about talking about it with others in fear that they will face social consequences due to the stigma of STDS. i think we need to start talking about STDS openly so as that is becomes less of a taboo subject.
another fact: 1 in 4 young adults in America have HPV. 1% of sexually active adults in America have genital warts. only an estimated 9,700 new cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed each year in the US and 500,000 worldwide. 20 MILLION NEW CASES OF HPV ARE DIAGNOSED EACH YEAR IN THE US. we need to confront HPV, access to health care so women can get annual pap smears, and stigma related to STDS. between 1955 and 1992 the rate of new cervical cancer fell 74% mainly due to the increase in screening through pap tests. this shows that education and access are critical in reducing the prevalence of cervical cancer. i think the HPV vaccine is a good tool of defense but shouldn’t be considered the “save-all-device” that it is advertised as. if you want to be “one less” practice safe sex and get an annual pap smear.
In synch with Star24 and Floyd I feel concerned about the HPV vaccine becoming mandatory for school. In the Canadian Women’s Health Network’s document their statements clearly defend the insufficient study of this new vaccine and give a guideline on how to safely address the effectiveness and efficacy of it. The short-term priority guideline of action for the government was great and I liked the way that they began and ended the document, their thankfulness “We unhesitatingly appreciate government interest in women’s health.” Legal Momentum’s document seems to me that is mainly looking at who will profit from making this vaccine mandatory, there is a lot of money to be made here and no sound evidence of it’s safeness and effectiveness. They say “…young women get the vaccine when it is most effective-well before their fist exposure to HPV.” How is this the “most effective” when the vaccine is only effective for sixty months? Fund more research to find out how safe it is for our young children, there is clearly not sufficient study and more than sufficient enthusiasm to be launched! The main purpose here is to protect ourselves, our women, our daughters, we have to push as a whole for a thorough study, hell isn’t this the US, country that spends the most in health care (1.9 trillion a year)?
This weeks reading as most reading have been very knowledge rich and a very useful tool for the U.S.A population, specially the young population which are the ones whom are highly affected by these chronic sexually transmitted infections. I also my self have found that the readings that were most mind-tearing were the both HPV readings.
One thing that struck me most about the reading, in particularly is the mandatory idea for HPV vaccination. Even though stdudies have shown that vaccinating girls for HPV shots in their early teens will prevent a lot of deaths in the U.S.A, i still think that this should be an individual choice. I know vaccination is great, but its also placing extra things into our bodies that we dont even know about for sure. Even though scientis say that the vaccine is a harmless protein of the virus, to me my self, you never know. Another aspect of it, is that there are plenty strains of the virus, i think about a hundred or more, and the vaccination protects for only two strains. I think 16 and 18 are the HPV strain that the vaccination protects us agaisnt which are the most common cause of cervical cancer, but i dont think there has been yet enough research into this area. To me, until then, there has been further research into many other different strains of the virus which can maybe also cause cervical cancer and many other cancers, then i would be “okay this is salvation”.
I am not agaisnt the HPV vaccination at all, but i just think we are over-estimating things sometimes. Specially these days in this capitalist society, phaurmaceutical companies and manufactures are coming up with plenty of things so they can make market and profit out of people, without the product being “a glory”. In the U.S.A everything that recently comes up, people make such big emphasis about it,such as the case of the invetion of Depoevora birth conrol, which was later discovered to be hazardous to our health.Finally, the HPV shot to me should still be under investigation, wether they going to make it better not only to protect agaisnt two strain of viruses, so until then i dont think it shoud be mandatory…because that placing everyone at risk and also treating everyone as ginny pigs.
Last year in my Peer Health class I learned alot about HPV and was educated on the vaccine. Although I was educated on it, the first time I realized how big of a issue HPV wasS was when I was working at a tanning salon last year and I was working with 4 girls who were talking about how they ALL had HPV. This was before I learned about it in class and I didn’t even know what it was.Every girl I worked with but me had it ? Then a very close friend of mine confided in me that she too had HPV. Since then numerous of my friends have gone and gotten the vaccine and others have appointments to get it. I am not sure if I will receive the vaccine yet seeing as I haven’t been to my yearly check up yet.
I believe in a person’s right to make their own decision in regards to medicine, yet A Call for Mandatory Vaccination makes a good point when they say that if the vaccine was mandatory then the government would have to pay for it. I remember in Peer Health they were saying that Health Services was offering the vaccine for free, then stopped, and was charging full or deducted price.
THe fact that half of the 80% of women who get HPV are aged 15-25 is out of control! It goes back to the argument of awareness in young ladies about yearly exams and the importance of pap smears. If a girl feels uncomfortable going to a gynocologist, they should think about how uncomfortable they will be when they one day find out they have HPV and need to go back and forth to the doctors to make sure everything is what it is supposed to be, like my friend who has to go to the doctors all of the time now.
As far as the vaccine being available as early as 9 years old I think parents get intimidated by already imagining their precious little girls having sex. BUT like the articles say is that to be most effective you need to get the vaccine before you become sexually active.
Abstinence being the cure of HPV is rediculous and if conservatives and religious people want to be against HPV they have to go to sleep at night ok with the fact that many women who could die from HPV could have been saved with the vaccine and didnt because they were against.
I think there needs to be more research into Gardasil before it can be made mandatory, but if what studies are saying is true and the vaccinne can do more good then bad I think parents and young women should do their own research and decide for themselves.
Like a few of the previous bloggers, I also fall on the side of concern for mandating the HPV vaccine or even recommending it to all young girls. I found the article from Legal Momentum rather disturbing in how it completely watered down both the arguments for and against the HPV vaccine. The only opposition presented was from the conservative right, which all of the probable readers of the article would likely disdain. There was no clear presentation of the very real concerns surrounding the vaccine, and this omission I believe is representative of the tendency to fail to inform women of their choices in reproductive health.
On the other hand, I felt the Canadian Women’s Health Network did an excellent job in outlining the concerns surrounding the HPV vaccine. One of the issues they bring up, which I find most concerning and relates to the previous article, is the lack of objective information presented to women in making informed choices about receiving the vaccine. It is marketed in the United States as the “cervical cancer vaccine”, which is entirely misleading. The vaccine of course will likely lead to a reduction in cervical cancer cases, but vaccinating against a virus that can cause cancer and appearing to claim to vaccinate against the cancer itself are two very different things. Whereas many forms of cancer cannot be predicted or averted to any significant degree, cervical cancer caused by HPV infection can. And although protected intercourse is not 100% effective against HPV transmission, the likelihood of acquiring HPV can still be greatly reduced through the use of condoms and even when present its potential pre-cancerous cellular changes can often be detected and removed.
To me, much of the choice in getting the HPV vaccine comes down to a personal cost-benefit analysis, and since I fall on the side of believing it is not in my best interested to receive the vaccine, it concerns me when it is pushed as a universal good thing for women. In the presence of solid sexual health education and women’s health services, the HPV vaccine offers only a small benefit to an individual women. The potential complications of the vaccine, such as a failure to get a needed booster and infection at an older age, may outweigh that small benefit for many. The “quick fix” presented by the vaccine is only beneficial in the context of our poor sexual health education in the U.S. and a lack of reliable and accessible health services for many groups of women.
In light of all this, I think there are many women who could greatly benefit from the vaccine and who might consider the benefits they receive in avoiding cervical cancer to outweigh potential risks. Where many women in the United States may benefit from personally choosing to be vaccinated, I think the majority of the women who would benefit most live outside the United States and will likely never have the opportunity to receive the vaccine. It’s in areas where there are little to no women’s health services, where women go without the early detection of Pap tests, that there often exists high rates of cervical cancer. In these cases, I feel the cervical cancer vaccine may be very appropriate, and if I personally had very little access to barrier protection and could not receive annual Pap tests, I would most certainly wish to have the option to be vaccinated.
But, in the context of the United States, I do not feel I would want my daughter to be forced to receive a vaccination that would potentially protect her so little when the unknowns surrounding it are so great. I would feel it was a personal decision for her – as would her decision be to become sexually active, to choose her partners and her preferred method of protection. If she would want to manage her risk through prevention and early detection alone, I believe that should remain her choice, and that the main job of the public health infrastructure would be to make choices available and affordable, and give information freely and objectively, but not force potentially unnecessary vaccination.
Wow…I just read through the majority of the blog entries and my head is spinning. People have a lot of different, but wonderful opinions. I’m still trying to collect my thoughts about my feelings towards HPV. It is my understanding that HPV is a fairly asymptomatic STI, especially in women. This is what makes it easy to live with HPV, not even know it, and go on to develop cervical cancer in the future. I am not as knowledgable about HPV and the vaccine as I feel I should be.
On a more general note, STIs can be managed and can be treated, but they are still a scary thing to deal with. Especially when an individual is unaware that they have an STI, they are not aware of how the infection is affecting their reproductive organs, overall health, and later fertility. I feel that STIs and many matters of reproductive health are not considered as important as health problems that can visibly be identified…such as chest pains, breathing problems, or a contagious disease. Personally, I sometimes do not pay as much attention to my reproductive health as I should. It is a private issue, and if you do contract an STI or have reproductive health problems…it becomes difficult to share these problems and not feel bad about yourself.
In my eyes, we all want to avoid STIs for our overall health. But if someone gets an STI, they should not be stigmatized ( EDUCATED INSTEAD) or thought of as a careless, “dirty” person…because certainly this is not the case in the majority of situations. I think that we all need to be aware of the way we speak about STIs in a casual, public setting…such as with our friends. We all know the slang terms for STIs( The clap, The clam, Herpsters) and even though we’re joking…I think these terms can be very hurtful for those who have STIs. Just something to be more aware of.
On another note, I have not yet received the HPV vaccine. My gyno gave me some literature on the subject, but I have not really researched it in depth (again this is an example of how reproductive health issues can be put on the back burner). I know that this is a hot topic and many friends that I know are in the process of getting their HPV vaccine shots. But I wanted to know what I’m getting into, and not do it simply because there was a large movement to get the HPV series of shots.
The article entitled ” HPV, Vaccines, and Gender: Policy Considerations” really got me thinking. The testing of Guardasil does not appear to be as meticulous as I would hope for, especially if this is something I will be putting in my own body. It is still a new vaccine, so I am concerned about long-term effects of this “vaccine”…is it definetely safe? Will there be side-effects we slowly begin to find out about within the next five or ten years?
I feel that the testing and marketing of this new vaccine were too rushed and not thorough enough for my own preferences. Also, to recommend this vaccine beginning at age 9 is a big step. According to the article, relatively few young girls were enrolled in the larger clincial trials of Guaradsil. The youngest ones were only followed for about 18 months. This time period is not long enough to truly see what kind of effects the vaccine has on such a young girl’s body. And I know that, there has to be many checks and balances in place in order for Guardasil or any vaccine to be approved…but I am still a bit uneasy about this vaccine. I know that doing my own research on Guardasil will probably alleviate some of my concerns, but this article really made me think that Guardasil is not as ideal as it is displayed to be.
I think that along with receving Guardasil, people need to recieve continual information and education that simply receiving this vaccine DOES NOT removes all risk of contracting HPV. According to the “Policy Considerations” article, there are many high-risk strains of HPV that Guardasil does not protect against. People need to be told this, and this needs to be stressed in the discussion and promotion of Guardasil and similiar vaccines. Even if someone decides upon using the vaccine, regular screening and Pap smears still need to be present in the overall picture of reproductive health. The use of barrier methods and safe sexual practices can not go out the window, when one completes the series of HPV shots.
I feel that constant education for both women and men is important, when dealing with HPV or any STI. As long as women ( and men) do not think that Guardasil is the a sure-fire form of prevention, I am not completely against health care providers educating and suggesting this vaccine to their patients.
Also, I look forward to more vaccine research and development for young men and boys in this area. If we are vaccinating all these young girls and women, and men are not being vaccinated as well…we might not be making as much progress as we think. As with an sexual health issue, I think men need to be as much a part of the movement as women. Their reproductive health is just as important and I feel that all genders should have the opportunity to be knowledgeable and empowered about their sexual health and the options that are available to them.
Sorry everyone…I swear this is my last post…I just have a lot of thoughts on these issues. I want to comment on the article entitled, “Syndemics, sex, and the city”. I really enjoyed this article and liked the fact that it featured a local city (Hartford, CT). I think that this article is important because it shows all the social and cultural beliefs that can get in the way of the statistics and facts we are always presented with. We certainly have the information, but it is not always as easy as that.
Even if we have the knowledge and understand the risks, our personal judgments do not always coincide with staying as safe as possible, in a sexual health sense. When the participants were asked, it appeared that there was a high awareness of the need for STI/HPV prevention through condom use with casual sexual partners. Okay, so people know this…but there is there still a high incidence of STIs in Hartford.
What I got from this article is that, the pleasure or enjoyment of a sexual encounter is appreciated more, especially if people are living in poverty or very tough economic situations. Opportunities for personal enjoyment are few and far between, and that is why casual sexual encounters are fairly frequent. I’m not sure if this is the sole reason or even an accurate reason, but this is one thing I extracted from this article.
I liked hearing the men’s and women’s own words about their decisions and ways they decide if someone is “clean” or not. It was nice to hear real words that are used in everyday life, instead of more clinical, formal wording. I could definite relate to some of the sentiments these people had about sex and condom use.
As relationships progress, condom use is often abandoned because it signals a lack of trust or possibly even a lack of commitment to the relationship. The thinking is…why do we need to use protection, if neither of us is sleeping with anyone else (whether this is true or not). And in many situations, relationships and the level of sexual comfort move along quite quickly…therefore condom use may be forgotten after only a few sexual encounters.
I really think it is important to encourage and educate that condoms should be used every time…even when you have been with someone for a considerable amount of time. Using a condom can never hurt anything…it only is a beneficial thing. Also, to show people pictures of all sorts of people that may look “clean” or “safe”, but indeed have asymptomatic STIs…is a way to begin discussion about the myth that one can judge whether it is safe to sleep with someone simply by looking at them.
I think this article presents one of the major challenges of health education, especially related to sexual practices. People appear to listen and understand what the risks are and what is healthy/ what it not…but it becomes much more difficult when someone enters into an actual sexual situation.
First of all, let me begin with the fact that I have recieved the HPV vaccination. I went to my doctor in the summer two years ago for my back to school check up and was offered to get the vaccination. My doctor explained that it was new, what it protected against, and how it was related to cervical cancer. After quickly scanning the information she gave me, I agreed. Now, in hindsight do I wish I had done more personal research? No.
Despite the fact that the vaccination is new and research is still considered to be in early stages I have faith in the safely of it. This is mostly because I never really questioned any other vaccine my doctor reccommened. Now granted, the older I get the more aware I am of my health, especially my reproductive health, but this is the way I see it: I am a sexually active twenty-something attended a huge public university, these are the years I am most suseptible to being infected, and protecting myself it very important!!
The reason I feel comfotable with this reasoning is this: I think one of the main reasons that people are questioning this vaccine more than others is because of WHAT it is protecting against. Despite countless Public Health efforts, there are plenty of sexually active people that couldn’t tell you the first thing about HPV. Thats because in general, there is a air of silence surrounding tabboo or uncomgotable things such as HPV. I don’t think the staunch conservative politicians could question giving their children vaccines against a number of illness, but if you associate a vaccine with sexuality, there go the breaks.
Another aspect of the readings that was particulary interesting to me was the study of girls perinatally infected with HIV. First of all, it was interesting that the clinics that cared for this girls through their youth, are so inequipped to handle them once they reach an age where they may become sexually active. This is hugely importnant not only to efforts to eradicate the disease, but also vital to the overall health of these girls.
I think the Gardasil vaccine is definitely a huge step in the right direction to prevent four strains of HPV that can lead to cervical cancer. If women are able to have this vaccine paid for by their insurance I feel they should get it because as of right now, we do not know of any harmful side effects from this vaccination and it can only protect women. One thing that I find ridiculous is that some people feel getting the Gardasil vaccine may encourage young girls to be promiscuous and lead to an increase premarital sex, and honestly I can not even take this argument seriously. This reminds me of the controversy surrounding needle exchange programs where some people say that giving out needles will encourage intravenous drug use, while several studies have shown absolutely no increase in drug use, but actually an increase in the number of people who seek treatment. I think that if women are educated enough to get the Gardasil vaccine, then they are most likely concerned about their sexual health and these women will probably be even more careful when it comes to practicing safer sex. So far, I have gotten the first two shots of this vaccine, and I plan to get the final one when I got home for Christmas break. I think having all the commercials about Gardasil is a good idea because these advertisements are able to reach millions of women, and for me, constantly hearing about this vaccine on tv and reading about it in magazines really pushed to make an appointment for the first shot. One downfall of this vaccine is that it is extremely expensive, and if it comes down to paying school tuition or getting a vaccine, families are going to choose paying bills, and we still do not even know how the Gardasil vaccine is going to affect us in 25 years. Also, you have to get a series of three shots, and many women may be unable to make it to a clinic or hospital within this 6 month period so there are definitely limitations with Gardasil, but overall I am pleased with this new healthcare discovery. For me, getting this vaccine is empowering in a way because I made this decision myself and I really feel that I have control over my sexual health and it feels good to know that I am doing something that could possibly save my life.
STIs are really scary to me, and getting tested is even worse. I remember when I got tested for HIV at Health Services, I had to go back a week later and get my results in person and that week was agony. I can not even explain how anxious I felt before I got the results back because your mind starts to race and you think about all the times you wish you had used a condom, what your life would be like if you had AIDS, etc. With that being said, I really think that the UMass community as a whole needs to make better decisions about our sexual health and students need to be educated about these issues. Free condoms should be easily accessible for all students because most of us will use them if we can get them. I also think it should be mandatory for all students to be checked for STIs and HIV because this is a growing problem all across the country. I read somewhere that about 1 in 4 students have an STI, so basically one of the four girls living in my house may have contracted something at one point! Mandatory testing for STIs may be unrealistic because of the costs involved, but students need to be encouraged to get tested because this is serious stuff. I know that the last time I got tested for STIs I was nervous before I got the results back, but when I found out I was clean it was a huge relief and now I am extremely careful when it comes to sex and I will never again put myself in a position where I have to worry about whether I may have contracted something or not. One of the main reasons why I got tested for STIs was because I learned so much about sexual health in my Public Health classes and I became so anxious and nervous that I had to go to health services so I could relax and stop thinking about it everyday. In my opinion there is a stigma surrounding getting tested because some people think that you automatically have something if you get tested when this is obviously not the case. When I got tested at UHS I had to bring all my test tubes down to the lab, and while I was waiting in line, I felt like everyone was looking at me weird and that they knew I had just gotten tested for STIs so I felt a little self-conscious. When it comes down to it, even though waiting for the results from an STI test can be nerve-racking, getting tested is the only way to know you are 100% clean and in the end it can prevent you from further complications later in life, such as PID, ectopic pregnancies, and fertility problems.
I was really bothered when I asked a past boyfriend of mine to get tested for STIs and HIV. When I asked him, he flipped out and turned the situation around, asking if I had been with any other guys. I could not believe that this person who supposedly loved me was making such a fuss about something as simple as getting tested. He said that he would know if he had something and that there was no need for it. If two partners truly respect one another then there should be no argument about getting tested because people’s health is in jeopardy and I take my health very seriously. It made me very angry that my boyfriend protested getting tested so much when he could have passed something on to without knowing it, and I think was quite selfish of this guy. He then started saying that he did not want to get a swab in the tip of his penis, but I have no sympathy for this because women must endure much worse than an uncomfortable swab. One way to possibly make this situation more comfortable for both partners is to get tested together and then get the results at the same time because you can be there to support one another and work through this stressful situation with someone by your side.