They’ll need a new excuse to oppose an HPV vaccine

This probably won’t get the attention it deserves, so take a moment to consider the breakthrough and its political implications.

An experimental vaccine against cervical cancer has moved a step closer toward becoming the first cancer vaccine of any kind on the market.

Scientists are reporting Friday that the vaccine was 100% effective in preventing cervical cancer and precancerous changes tied to two types of a common sexually transmitted virus.

The issue is a vaccine that targets human papillomavirus (HPV), a rapidly spreading venereal disease, which, in some cases, causes cervical cancer. A vaccine could prevent more than 200,000 women from dying of cervical cancer each year (including 5,000 here in the United States). As New Scientist recently reported, deaths from cervical cancer could jump fourfold to a million a year by 2050, mainly in developing countries, all of which are preventable with this vaccine.

Kevin Ault, an Emory University obstetrician/gynecologist who did his research on the vaccine at the University of Iowa, said preteens and adolescents, sexually active or not, could receive the HPV vaccine along with the other shots they’re required to get — and according to the research, it’s literally 100% effective.

This is a major medical achievement, right? Surely anyone concerned about public health will be thrilled at the opportunity to reduce cervical cancers through a safe and readily-available vaccine, right?

For the “pro-family” Republican base, not so much.

“[A]bstinence only” advocates love HPV. That’s because the virus can be spread by skin-to-skin contact other than intercourse, meaning that condoms are less effective at preventing HPV infection than blocking the spread of other STDs. Abstinence groups don’t want a vaccine to eliminate this fear factor. “Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex,” says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a Christian lobby that plans to fight a Merck campaign to make HPV vaccination mandatory for all girls by the time they enter junior high. Of course, absolutely no evidence supports Maher’s claim. But there’s plenty of evidence that an HPV vaccine will prevent thousands of needless deaths.

As Amanda at Pandagon put it, the report on this vaccine probably means “the religious right is going to be backed into a corner.” I think that’s true — a 100%-effective vaccine vs. an ineffective abstinence-only crusade should be an easy call.

That, however, assumes that common decency (and common sense) will drive the decision-making, and conservative activists won’t. Amanda said, “The right may roll over and not fight this one, but if they do, I think it’s unwise to pull punches and start calling them ‘pro-cancer’ straightaway.”

That may sound harsh, but it also sounds entirely appropriate under the circumstances.

Hey. They are already pro-suffering. Pro-cancer would fit nicely into that.

  • No, they won’t “fight” it. But the FDA chief will dither and delay giving approval, and appoint a commission, and Congress won’t fund the commission, and then they will, and then the commission will recommend the drug, and the wackos will threaten to boycott drug companies that make the drug, and the FDA chief will dither and delay, and …

    … and women will die.

    It’s all very depressing.

  • Two possible positives here. First, this seems like the kind of thing that the majority of people will support. I’m thinking stem-call research here. This is much less contraversial than stem cells. Second, it is only matter of time. Opposing something like this only makes the Neocons and their fundamentialist buddies look worse. This just drives the nail into the coffin a little faster. The facade is crumbling on these idiots and reason will eventually return to the people. How many people have to die before that happens is the disturbing part.

  • It’s good to hear that an HPV vaccine is finally going on the market, but I’m not sure that all of the Christian Right’s misgivings about it are cruel and misguided. Specifically, I’m not sure that HPV vaccinations should be made “mandatory” for anyone: unlike measles or diptheria, HPV cannot be spread by casual contact and its effects aren’t necessarily fatal. There is a demonstrable public-health interest in preventing fast-spreading and potentially fatal epidemics, an interest which outweighs families’ private interest in deciding whether or not their children should receive MMR or DT vaccinations. I’m not sure HPV vaccines meet this standard. I think parents should be encouraged to vaccinate their children against HPV (and why just girls? Doesn’t HPV cause genital warts and penile cancer, as well?), but I’m not convinced that they should be subject to fines or imprisonment if they fail to do so. Also, I can easily imagine young women believing that HPV vaccinations will protect them against other sexuallly-transmitted diseases, even if (a big if, nowadays) they’ve had sex ed courses that tell them otherwise. Wishful thinking and sex go together quite naturally.

  • Ya know what? Fine. Those who don’t want stem cell research, new vaccines, etc. – don’t use ’em. Go ahead and suffer.

    But allow those of us who want health, improvement of life, etc. to reap the benefits.

    I’m sick and tired of these stone-age holier-than-thous dictating how they think we should all live. Just GO AWAY!

    Hannah, liberal Christian, who thinks God/Jesus wants scientists to use their brains to develop medical breakthroughs to alleviate suffering!!!

  • Comments are closed.