Those Three Letters

SEX, STD, HPV

Who knew that just three little letters could stir up concern, controversy, and heated debate all over the nation? Well it's not the actual abbreviation for Human Papillomavirus, the leading cause of preventable cervical cancer in women, that's making parents, lawmakers and religious conservatives squirm. Rather it's the history behind it, and drug that could protect against it.

You've seen the commercials asking you to "tell somebody" about the tragic effects of HPV. Well, if you're a critical thinker and an avid news reader, then you've realized by now that the commercials were not just for information purposes, although the message is a valuable one. They were also trying to prepare you to get your wallet, or perhaps your health insurance ready for a new drug.

Merck and Company has done it again. In June of 2006, The Food and Drug Administration approved Gardasil. This vaccine is intended for use in girls nine to 26. It's designed to protect against the four strains of HPV which cause about 70 percent of cervical cancer and 90 percent of cervical warts.

It turns out that this time, the shot that's being talked about 'round the world has nothing to do with the American Revolution. The Gardasil shot would be administered in three doses over a six-month period, and it's most effective if used before the first sexual encounter. Congress is taking measures to make sure that when it comes to the prevention of cervical cancer, school age girls are safe rather than sorry.

Bills are under consideration in at least 28 states that would either make Gardasil mandatory for sixth grade girls, or would require schools to make the immunization more available to parents. In Virginia, House Bill 2035 would require girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated beginning in fall 2009.

Critics of the bill are arguing that mandating such a vaccination would destroy efforts to promote sexual abstinence. They say it's wrong to assume that children that young are thinking about sex. It's even been implied that since children already feel invincible, requiring them to be vaccinated would somehow send the message that sex is now completely safe.

But these arguments can easily be refuted.

There are several aspects of society that can be detrimental to abstinence efforts. Children can be influenced by television, magazine articles, and even getting involved with certain groups of friends. Why isolate efforts that could eventually prove to be helpful in decreasing the number of women who die from cervical cancer?

Additionally, it's not necessarily assumed that 11 and 12-year-old children are all sexually active or on that path. However, the HPV vaccination is a preventive effort, meaning that the the purpose is to prevent negative consequences before they are a possibility.

Recent findings published by the Family Foundation reported that the median age for a girl's first sexual encounter is 17. Although the fact that children are having sex at younger ages may be a disturbing one, it's a fact none the less. Ethical and religious decisions about abstinence need to start in the home, at church and possibly even discussed in a classroom, but not imposed upon overarching government regulations.

It's true that children are naturally prone to feel more invincible than adults. However, HPV is not the only dangerous STD that exists. If adolescents feel that being vaccinated for one disease indicates protection from other diseases also, then that's a problem with the education system as opposed to teen sexuality.

If there should be any opposition to this bill and others of the sort, it should be about safety as opposed to morality.

If you remember Vioxx, Merck and Company's infamous arthritis and pain reducing drug, then you'll also recall the various complaints and lawsuits associated with it. Vioxx was found to increase the risk of irregular heart rhythms and kidney problems. Merck then proposed a replacement drug, Arcoxia, which posed the same heart risks as its predecessor with the added side effect of higher blood pressure.

And although the studies that Merck conducted, which tested Gardasil on 20,000 women, were found to be safe and effective, some reports are exposing possible flaws. In young girls being tested, the National Vaccine Information Center has found reports of neurological problems such as severe headaches, dizziness, temporary loss of vision, slurred speech, muscle weakness, and the list goes on. Reaction reports of such negative side effects have come from 21 states, including Washington D.C. , and Virginia.

The positive impact that Gardasil could have is undeniable. In the United States, nearly 10,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year, and nearly 3,700 die. Over time certain types of HPV have the potential to cause cervical cancer. And according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at least 80 percent of women will acquire some form of the disease by the age of 50.

There is a need for the vaccine in the market, and there is a need for the information about it at home and in schools. However, before we make it mandatory for sixth grade girls, we need to take a step back and make sure that the long-term benefits outweigh the consequences.

This vaccination is a learning opportunity. Parents can provide their children with information about the disease and the prevention efforts, and then make a decision whether or not to invest in the shot. There may come a day when mandatory immunization for an STD is the best option. But for now, parents deserve a choice. And not just the choice to opt out of a required vaccination because of religious or medical reasons. But a choice of whether or not it's right for the child.

Offering financial assistance for a vaccination that would cost at least $288 for the complete dosage is a good idea. And Gov. Tim Kaine has proposed using $1.4 million to supply health departments with HPV vaccine for girls who are not covered.

Giving parents and children the information needed to fully understand the risks and benefits of Gardasil is a good idea.

But making an HPV vaccination that was just approved in June 2006, and is produced by a company whose profits have been seriously impacted by over 23,000 Vioxx lawsuits, mandatory; May not be such a good idea.