The Religious Right's opposition to cancer cure

That's an interesting question. I think it has to be formed in a different way, however.

I have seen the stats that say 1 in 3 girls, and 1 in 5 boys, are victims of childhood sexual abuse. However, those stats include a wide range of inappropriate activity, including "non contact sexual abuse" (see http://www.childtrauma.org/ctamaterials/sexual_abuse.asp for a good article, although the table listing the various kinds of contact and non-contact abuse is missing). I suspect Internet chat rooms qualify as child sexual abuse when a predator engages a minor. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has a quick list of types of abuse at http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/ser..._US&PageId=1502. Its lists some non-contact forms of sexual abuse.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has an article where they cite the statistic as 1 out of 5 women and 1 out of 10 men suffering child sexual abuse (see http://www.medem.com/MedLB/article_detaill...7C&sub_cat=348). They don't specifically state if that includes the non-contact form of sexual abuse, which they identify as what we would call "flashing", and showing pornographic or erotic materials to children. But they mention those non-contact forms in the next paragraph.

But even taking all 20% of girls exposed to childhood sexual abuse. What percentage of those have sexual contact where they can be exposed to a STD? In other words, how many of the victims have physical contact, and what is the infection rate for those that do? I couldn't find the rates for STDs among children under the age of 9 (the minimum age for the vaccine). I suspect that's because they are so low that they are below the radar.

The other consideration is how Merck is playing fast and loose with the statistics. While their vaccine does indeed show a nearly "100% success rate", the Centers for Disease Control clarifies the issue a bit:

So, do you consider childhood sexual abuse when deciding to give universal innoculations? Not that fact alone, no.

Of the 20% of female children who are estimated to be sexually abused, a sub-set of them will have physical sexual contact. I can't find the stats for actual physical contact forms of childhood sexual abuse.

Of the subset that has physical contact, a subset of them will have the type of contact that could pass the HPV virus (usually "penetrative" contact, see http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/Provider6-2005/...raft_FINAL.pdf). I can't find recent stats on penetrative child rape, but in 1992, the Bureau of Justic Statistics gave a conservative extrapolation that 17,000 children under the age of 12 were raped (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/crv92.pdf). Let's double that conservative estimate and say its 34,000 girls. And let's say the perpetrator of this crime has the highest incidence of HPV ... 80% of sexually active people have it, according to some stats. So let's guess that 80% of those 34,000 girls will be raped by someone with HPV. That's 27,000 children.

Of the children exposed to the HPV virus, a subset of them will have a form of the virus that can lead to eventual development of cervical cancer (estimated at 10% of the women with HPV). We're down to 2,700 possible victims with a form of HPV that can be persistent and cause cervical cancer later in life. And this vaccine will help 70% of them ... 1,890 girls.

Even though the incidence of childhood sexual abuse is astonishingly high, when you slice and dice the numbers and get down to facts of the case at hand, I don't feel there is a compelling reason for the government to force parents to give their children the vaccine. It should be encouraged, certainly.

A greater case for the vaccine is for normal, teenage sexual activity, which has a much higher incidence. If I had kids in that age group, I would pay the $360 for the vaccine, as it provides some measure of protection against at least some of the types of HPV that the person can get.

All people reading this who are in the target age of 9 - 26 years old should get the vaccine.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 18 2006, 02:53 AM) [snapback]272969[/snapback]</div>

I sure hope we don't have any 9-year olds reading FHOP!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 18 2006, 02:53 AM) [snapback]272969[/snapback]</div>

Wow! FSHagen and I actually agree on something! This might just be a sign of the impending apocalypse.

Just a couple of points of clarification: this isn't actually a cure, it is a preventative. If we can eliminate the virus, we can eliminate the cases of cancer caused by it, so it may be a societal cure eventually (in the same manner that we've mostly eliminated Polio and Smallpox). It is important to note that this vaccine only works when given to someone before they are exposed to the HPV virus in question. The best way to do this is to vaccinate them before any sexual activity whatsoever.

HPV is generally not spread through non-sexual contact, but it does occasionally occur. One instance of this is called 'vertical transmission', and can occur when a mother infected with HPV passes the virus to their child during childbirth (by direct contact with infected parts of the vagina). Preventing this type of transmission in the future (by innoculating the mother before she has any sexual activity) may be a persuasive argument for the vaccine.

As has been suggested, the virus can also be spread through non-intended sexual contact, whether that be child sexual abuse or even rape. I'd suggest that preventing even one case of HPV transmission and subsequent cervical cancer due to rape is a persuasive argument for the virus.

It is also interesting to note that this vaccine works just as well on boys as it does on girls, and prevents certain forms of penile cancers related to the HPV virus. These cancers are rare anyway, so boys aren't generally considered to be at significant risk. The vaccine prevents the occurance of genital warts in both boys and girls, and therefore prevents the ability to spread them during sexual activity. I would imagine that if we were to immunize only boys, the end result would be similar... you're still minimizing the spread of the virus. Would the religious right be more likely to accept the vaccine if it wasn't administered to girls, but was administered to boys?

Dan

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ Jun 18 2006, 09:58 AM) [snapback]273085[/snapback]</div>

A couple of nit-picks on your post ... the non-sexual transmission stats aren't even cited as they are so low, including from infected mother to baby. Every thing I've read allows for the possibility of non-sexual transmission but reinforces that it is not only rare, but undocumented (in other words, there's no proof it has EVER happened). Part of the reason is that for most people, HPV is either conquered by the immune system or "goes dormant" (they aren't sure which) within 2 years of contracting it, and the person is not infectious after that point.

The CDC does say that people already infected may be able to benefit, as the vaccine protects against 4 of the individual HPV viruses (virii?) that can become persistent and lead to cervical cancer, and its very rare for a person to have all 4 of those viruses. Because the vaccine protects against getting 70% of the "bad" HPV strains, extremely sexually active people probably won't benefit as much as people who are less sexually active. And so far, it is only approved for women between 12 and 26 (tests are on-going for boys, men and older women).

The one real disadvantage of this vaccine is in the misinformation that is going out, from both sides. The single best way to survive cervical cancer is to get regular pap smears. If women believe the stats the Merck reps are putting out there ... "100% effective!" ... they may become complacent and not see their doctor often enough.

(WARNING: THEOLOGICAL STATEMENT AHEAD! ANTI-FAITH BIGOTS AVERT YOUR EYES!)
Evangelicals should consider this a preventative measure against a condition that survives even the regenerative power of substitionary atonement. Your future son-in-law could be washed in the blood and a new creature in Christ, a Promise Keeper, faithful and the "husband of one wife", and still unknowingly pass one of the strains of HPV he doesn't even know he has.