Today`s Sunday Times reports that "earlier this month a federal health panel gave a preliminary green light to Gardasil, a vaccine developed by Merck. It has been shown to protect against two types of human papilloma virus, which is mostly spread by sexual contact and is the cause of about 70% of cervical cancers.
Medical experts believe the drug will work best if given to girls and young women before they become sexually active.
Many american conservatives recognise that battling a life-saving medical advance would be political suicide. But die-hards remain suspicious. “Premarital sex is dangerous,” wrote one on the Abstinence Clearinghouse website. “Let’s not encourage it by vaccinating 10-year-olds so they think they are safe.” "
I say what an exciting medical advance - it may do away with the need for cervical smears for example as well as preventing 70% of cervical cancer.
But it is an interesting question! If you can remove the consequences of "sin" does that increase the likelihood of sinful behaviour?
Frankly I think it is an academic argument as any sexual activity raises the risk of cervical cancer so all women ought to have the vaccine before the commencement of sexual activity. So what will the conservatives do then - a pre-wedding night vaccination only??!
Reflect on the term "die-hard conservatives", will their attitude mean that some women will "die hard" when they didn`t need to?
Angus
No comments:
Post a Comment