Cancer jabs Should Be Compulsory For 11&12 Year Old Schoolgirls ?

Jan 23, 2006
15,831
24
What do you think ?

jab051006_228x342.jpg

Despite claims that it encourages under-age sex, medical journal The Lancet has called for compulsory cancer jabs for schoolgirls.


The magazine has published an editorial which says all schoolgirls aged 11 and 12 should be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

The jab, against what is effectively a sexually transmitted infection, is controversal because it is argued that they encourage under-age sex.
But The Lancet states that Europe should follow the lead of the US state of Michigan, which passed a bill on September 21 ruling that all 11 to 12-year-old sixth grade girls must be immunised.

"This is the first legislation of its kind in the USA, and a decision from which the EU members states should take heed," said the editorial.
There is also growing support for the vaccination of boys. They too can carry human papillomavirus (HPV), the virus spread by sexual intercourse that can trigger cervical cancer.

Studies have shown that a female-only vaccination would be only 60-75% as effective as strategies targeting both sexes.
Previous gender-specific programmes had not always succeeded, said the journal. In 1995, Britain's rubella immunisation programme was modified after 25 years to include boys as well as girls after a rise in the number of pregnant women contracting the disease.
"For effective and long-term eradication of HPV, all adolescents must be immunised," said The Lancet.
 
Its not really a cancer shot. It is an anti viral injection to prevent HPV and other sexually transmitted diseases. HPV can lead to cervical cancer if not treated correctly and timely. I think this is awesome.
 
The arguement that it encourages under age sex is a joke. How many teenage girls are NOT having sex because they are afraid of getting cervical cancer?

Also, I know the vaccination they are referring to and it's most effective if administered at that young age. Therefore, what's the point of putting the vaccination off till legal age and foregoing it's effectiveness?
 
So let me get this straight, if you innoculate a teenage girl so she is safe against the HPV virus, you are encouraging teen sex? That is the stupidest argument that I have ever heard.

When we had sex education, some of my peer's parents would not let them take part in the class, which was too bad because I swear those birthing film, AIDS documentaries, and pictures of herpes sores made me think twice about having sex in high school, and definitely encouraged me to use protection when I finally did become sexually active.
 
LOL, if the uptight parents really want to discourage sex in teens they should give them a shot & then them what advanced genital warts looks like. I remember seeing those pictures in Sex Ed class in high school. I didn't even want to look at guys after seeing those pictures. Yuck!:throwup:
 
The arguement that it encourages under age sex is a joke. How many teenage girls are NOT having sex because they are afraid of getting cervical cancer?

Also, I know the vaccination they are referring to and it's most effective if administered at that young age. Therefore, what's the point of putting the vaccination off till legal age and foregoing it's effectiveness?

Agreed!
 
how in the world does it encourage underage sexual activity ??? im sooorrry is cervical cancer the ONLY thing stopping them?? come on!!

i think its good but 11 is young. my sis is 12 and sher and her friends donest even know the full deal with sex.. ( i dont think so anyway)
 
Cervical cancer runs on the maternal side of my family. My daughter turns 14 in November and she was vaccinated 2 weeks ago. Our doctor said there were quite a few parents inquiring and subsequently vaccinating their young daughters. It just makes sense - prevention, prevention, prevention!

Oh, by the way, never once did I think it'd encourage her to have sex. Where do people come up with this garbage?
 
When we had sex education, some of my peer's parents would not let them take part in the class, which was too bad because I swear those birthing film, AIDS documentaries, and pictures of herpes sores made me think twice about having sex in high school, and definitely encouraged me to use protection when I finally did become sexually active.


:wtf: Damn girl, all we had back in the stone ages was cartoons! I'd probably still be a virgin if I'd seen all that! EEEk!
 
When we had sex education, some of my peer's parents would not let them take part in the class, which was too bad because I swear those birthing film, AIDS documentaries, and pictures of herpes sores made me think twice about having sex in high school, and definitely encouraged me to use protection when I finally did become sexually active.
I knew a girl whose parents didn't allow her to take part in the sex education portion of health class. They were fundamentalist Christians who didn't like the fact that the curriculum discussed condoms and other forms of contraception. She was barely out of highschool and unmarried when she had her baby.
 
I absolutely don't think that these shots will encourage young people to have sex at a too-early age. If I had a daughter, I would want her to get this shot. Even though it's not a 100% shot, there's a chance that it would protect my daughter from Ovarian Cancer.

I'm not very educated on who can get it, but I hope that I can....