I think you're right on here, Wendy. "Choice" and "privacy" are the new words used to enslave young women. They're used to keep those that actually are concerned for the woman (their family) away from knowing what is going on in their children's lives.

Hello from Bridgeport CT. We were one of the many cities that got federal money for doing The Big Read with a book about two daughters who had each lost their mother, and were raised very differently. One accused a man of sexual abuse; her name was Mayella. You will know it as "To Kill A Mockingbird." The main character, Scout, had three women to help her reach maturity. They were Calpurnia, Alexandra, and Maudie. I wonder if it is possible for writers (maybe you) to expand on this social arrangement that I call a "Calpurnian arrangement" wherein a child with only one parent gets - or is given by the storyteller - three nurturing adults to help them reach maturity. My wife is an English teacher and we have four daughters and one son. Feel free to use this idea, or coin this term. Will end here.

Question: do doctors ask permission to give the measles vaccine, or the polio vaccine? Why specifically would they need special permission for the HPV vaccine? The aim of all those vaccines is the same- to prevent disease. Right? So what's the difference? Why has the choice to get HPV vaccine been so politicized? I find this reasoning very difficult to understand. Could someone elaborate?

I had to sign a consent for every vaccine I or my children have received.

The FDA has sped up the process for approving drugs.
You have heard about the lawsuits etc. etc.
I subscribe to the New England Journal of Medicine online, and there have been articles critizing the safety of new drug approval guidelines. From what I have read, the HPV vaccine was rushed to market. If it had not been, some would have said they did not care about women's health, however the reverse may be true. Our society wants cures NOW. Unfortunately demonstrating drug safety takes time.

The HPV manufacturer and FDA could have been more forthright by offering the vaccine with that information about it, letting people decide for themselves if they wanted to take the risk.

I had a lot of anxiety when I was pregnant, so I went to a counselor who said several times I should ask my doctor for an antidepressant that was safe for pregnancy. I thought to myself, I am going to counseling so I won't have to take drugs. Now there are birth defect lawsuits pending regarding the very drugs that were available when I was pregnant.

Think for yourself, if you can avoid a drug, especially one of the new ones, it could be a good idea.

I'd like to respond to Anna's question. I think the reason the HPV vaccine is such a hot-button issue is because HPV has to do with lifestyle whereas measles, mumps and the like do not. Since I have the ability to CHOOSE not to put myself in a position to contract HPV (i.e- remaining a virgin until marriage), who are you to tell me I have to get a vaccine for it. My decision should be a strong enough argument against it. Plus, it's brand new. There aren't any studies on it or its long-term effects. I think that might touch on what you were wondering- maybe someone else has another opinion.

Heidi, yes, doctors do need parental permission to administer other vaccines. In fact, the general rule is that doctors need parental permission for any treatment unless emergency treatment is necessary to save a minor's life. I have refused many routine (IMO, unnecessary) treatments for my children. It's all part of the fact that parents are ultimately responsible for our children's health and well-being.

There are many objections to the HPV vaccine. There are concerns that the HPV vaccine in particular was rushed through the approval process and is not proven safe like other drugs. And, of course, there is concern over legislation requiring the vaccine when abstinence and fidelity provide protection from HPV without drugs. (Successfully avoiding disease without drugs is always safer than taking drugs you don't need.)

But I think that the major concern in this particular case is the trend toward having the state or doctors make decisions for minors without the parents' consent if the subject is sexual activity. Engaging in sexual activity is a huge step for any person, especially minors, with consequences encompassing physical, emotional, and spiritual health. It is ironic that such an important and life-altering subject should be strangely alienated from the influence of parents. It is crazy that a prescription for cold medicine requires parental consent, but a vaccination for an STD, a prescription for birth control, or even an abortion does not. As MIntheGap commented, "choice" and "privacy" are code words for separating young women from the positive and healthy influence of loving parents. In this case, "choice" was less about what the young woman and her family actually chose, and more about what the medical establishment and society chose for them, just as many young women feel that "choice" in sexuality is more about what their friends and boyfriends think they should do, rather than what they actually want.

BTW, Annie, I understand that your fear of not having as much influence over your children's decisions once they are grown. However, back in March the Washington Times ran an article explaining that vaccinating preteen girls against HPV will offer them no protection as adults:

"Lawmakers looking to force preteen girls to take Gardasil, a new vaccine against a virus that causes cervical cancer, are targeting the wrong age group, cancer data shows.

Middle-school girls inoculated with the breakthrough vaccine will be no older than 18 when they pass Gardasil's five-year window of proven effectiveness -- more than a decade before the typical cancer patient contracts the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV).

Infectious disease specialists and cancer pathologists say the incubation period for HPV becoming cancer is 10 to 15 years -- meaning the average cervical cancer patient, who is 47, contracted the virus in her 30s and would not be protected by Gardasil taken as a teen."

(http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/03/hpv_vaccine_tar.html)

Caitlyn, you raise a good point and I'd certainly have a problem with enforcement of a vaccine or medical treatment on anyone who didn't want it, and this whole Merck situation chills me- the more I look into it the more it seems like marketing and profiteering are driving the campaign, especially when I know how many senators receive large donations from pharmaceutical companies. However, I think it is worth noting that rape exists... how horrifying for a girl or woman to experience this and ALSO have to end up with a disease that could have been prevented.

Due to large number of people involved in drug abuse activities, many organizations have come into existence for providing absolutely free services to the people who can’t afford high cost of drug addiction treatment. These organizations also provide drug education to all the people.

Asbestos or pesticides are supposedly used in many women's hygiene products (pads and so on), and they are said to cause or be linked to ovarian cancer.

Now Merck comes up with a vaccine to prevent this? Initially, the vaccine was touted to help ward off and/or treat HPV and they are quick to say that even though this can clear up on its on (and it does) and it can lead to cancer...so you HAVE to have it.

That's ridiculous. It's all about money. I'm not a practicing Christian and even though I do agree a lot of the objection has to do with it's ties to lifestyle...I'm not opposed to it for moral reasons as many who are pro vaccine have claimed.

We have legitimate to oppose this. How can we have unhealthy pads and tampons and then provide a "vaccine" which had very limited trials I might add on a select number of women in a select age group. It is pretty nuts.