Comments for en-gb 30 Sun 01 Feb 2015 17:11:34 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at mediaseller My 26 year old daughter recently had a smear test and abnormal cells were found on her Cervix, in fact it had developed beyond CIN3 (which is the highest level).Fortunately the tests which have returned show that she is clear of cancer or at least there is no micro-invasion.I can't help but think that possibly it could have stemmed from her meagre sexual activity while at university.It cannot be stressed too much that vaccination at the earliest suitable age should be welcomed so that other families do not suffer the same angst which we have suffered this last week.I for one whole heartedly welcome vaccination wherever it takes place.Don't believe that it could'nt happen to your daughter. Fri 26 Sep 2008 17:13:21 GMT+1 Chris Ghoti philtblog @ 99, you wrote'CG @ 93 MMR is not a Bad Thing. Unfortunately, some poor science coupled with sensationalist (and, in my opinion, irresponsible) reporting led to a decrease in uptake and therefore herd immunity with an increase in cases of measels to follow. No school would be sued for following the CMOs advice on best practice for imunisation.'I wasn't saying that *I* thought the MMR jab is a bad thing; I was suggesting that there was a public perception, whipped up by one section of the media, that it was (sorry if it was unclear that I can see the invalidity of a study on 10 or so children being taken as meaningful in a population of millions). If that happened with the cervical cancer jab, some parent might choose to sue the school for letting it be done there, and *even though there was no chance they'd win* that would be expensive to deal with, difficult and involving a lot of bad publicity for the school.'A more interesting question is whether the school should be sued if it turns out that uptake of the vaccine is lower at that school than other comparable schools and the incidence of cervical cancer in pupils from that cohort is higher.'It's safer to do nothing than it is to do something, because it's very difficult to sue someone for inaction, and hard to prove that it is the business of the school rather than of the parent, the health authority or even the individual to take reasonable steps to protect the individual's health. If the school could be sued, should not the parent also be liable if s/he decided not to insist on the child being vaccinated? And could it be proved conclusively that the lack of a jab was causal in the cancer, if the jab doesn't protect against 30% of the cancers anyway?'Everyone, scientists, doctors, the media and anyone with responsibility fo rthe welfare of children (including shcoool governors) should think very carefully before carrying out an action which will potentially have a detrimental effect on the health of those in their care. That doesn't mean everyone has to become an expert but that they should listen to expert advice.'The point is that the vaccination is an action, non-vaccination is an inaction, as it were. If there is 'reasonable doubt' about anything, one is safer from action against one if one does nothing. If it were the jab rather than the lack-of-jab that turned out to be detrimental, where does that leave the people who administered it?I personally don't in the least applaud or approve a 'pass by on the other side' approach, but I can see that it may be tempting to try to avoid trouble by not doing something that might provide an excuse for one to be sued later. Haven't some of the parents of autistic children who blame the child's condition on the MMR jab tried to sue the people they consider to have been responsible for administering it? Maybe that didn't get anywhere, but it's still something that has to be defended against, and defending oneself against even the silliest or most frivolous legal action is expensive in time, money and aggravation.I *know* that some schools feel they cannot administer first aid to a child with a minor injury, but have to send for the parent to deal with it, just in case the child has some allergic reaction to the plaster they put on or the injury turns out to be more serious than they had thought and the parent makes a fuss. That happened with one of my daughters who fell over and bumped her head: I was called and told to take her to a hospital for examination (just in case she had a cracked skull, I suppose). I can see that a school might feel that the risk of being sued for having done what someone considered to be the wrong thing was something to avoid...This is why I want to know, before I assume that the reason for the school's refusing permission for the jab to be given on school premises is entirely religious and that I ought to be cross with them for it, whether they allow all other jabs to be given there, and if not which ones they don't allow. I also want to know whether this is the only school that has refused it, and if there are others what *their* given reasons are for not allowing it.You see, I dislike being told what to think about something but not given anything like the full facts to judge it on. The 'Catholic school refuses jab with sexual implications' story is easy, facile even, but doesn't take account of what the school said in their letter, and I want to know what else we are not being told in the rush to have a simple story told. So far, PM doesn't seem to be doing that: the follow-up last night seemed weighted against the school and seemed to be primarily about 'religion versus science' with lots of quoted letters from people on that side of the story, but didn't manage to give anything more from the school than we already had... Fri 26 Sep 2008 12:26:01 GMT+1 JoePublic yes, more of the good old fashioned British attitude of let's not provide grown up sex health care or advice to youngsters in case it encourages them to engage in the sinful act. I see it's working well with Britain having the highest rate of unwanted underage/teenage pregnancies while open and liberal cultures like the Netherlands have the lowest! Let's not talk about sex:it might go away... Fri 26 Sep 2008 11:17:19 GMT+1 JoePublic On what authority does a Faith based school over any other type of school have to decide anything about the physical or mental well being of its pupils. How can "religeon" in anyway be used to give a school any decision making power whatsoever over and above any other type of school. What makes religeous school governors entitled to have any input in this subject anyway? It's lunacy. Fri 26 Sep 2008 11:10:22 GMT+1 David_McNickle Who's Jeremy Vine? Fri 26 Sep 2008 09:00:37 GMT+1 philtblog CG @ 93 MMR is not a Bad Thing. Unfortunately, some poor science coupled with sensationalist (and, in my opinion, irresponsible) reporting led to a decrease in uptake and therefore herd immunity with an increase in cases of measels to follow. No school would be sued for following the CMOs advice on best practice for imunisation.A more interesting question is whether the school should be sued if it turns out that uptake of the vaccine is lower at that school than other comparable schools and the incidence of cervical cancer in pupils from that cohort is higher.Evereyone, scientists, doctors, the media and anyone with responsibility fo rthe welfare of children (including shcoool governors) should think very carefully before carrying out an action which will potentially have a detrimental effect on the health of those in their care. That doesn't mean everyone has to become an expert but that they should listen to expert advice.There is often disagreement in the medical literature but in cases like these there is generally overwhelming concordance of opinion and ignoring this in the face of anecdotal evidence or opinion is fool-hardy at best and at some point becomes negligent. I'm not suggesting that is the case here, necessarily, but it is not good enough to assume a health care conspiracy and opt out on behalf of others as a result.The contraception/immunisation vs. abstinence argument is polarised. We should encourage people to do what we know works and not take an ostrich's approach. Fri 26 Sep 2008 08:48:09 GMT+1 IrishHumanist As an Irish person who has suffered under the tyranny of the Catholic Church in the past I am not at all surprised at this decision by the school governors. Ultimately all religions are a struggle to hold back the tide of improving human rights, especially for women and children. They are losing that struggle, losing their 'followers', losing money and closing temples and churches. Let us hope they do not cause too much chaos as they fade into the deadly, mean and vicious past history of mankind. Thu 25 Sep 2008 23:09:34 GMT+1 taximom I've listened to this story a number of times today and I am still amazed that any School Governor could take a decision which could ultimately lead to the death of one or more of their female pupils at some time in the future from cervical cancer. Yes, the pupils could get the vaccination somewhere else (but they, or their parents, might decide not to do this, especially if the school appear to be 'advocating' against the vaccination). This school (or its governors) are abdicating responsibility for a vaccination programme which may be responsible for saving someones life and may equally well be responsible for taking it if the vaccination is not given. This has nothing to do with encouraging underage sex this is a public health programme. Surely the local Primary Care Trust could send an expert along to explain why the vaccination is being given and clarify to the governors the possible consequences of their actions. Thu 25 Sep 2008 20:37:05 GMT+1 Sid gradlon (95) - a lot of unevidenced claims there.What detailed paperwork?What external agencies?How big are these postage and telephone bills?Which visitors does the caretaker have to arrange seating for?I know this happens for school photos and things like that - is that what you're referring to? Thu 25 Sep 2008 20:08:22 GMT+1 gradlon Heated talk about girl vaccination in RC schools misses a big issue! We need to look at how health and other agencies abuse access to weel-meaning schools.Clerical staff have to supervise the planning and other arrangements, and spend valuable time completing detailed paperwork for an external agency. This means they can't carry the duties for which they are being paid, and on which the smooth running of the school relies.The cost to the school of postage and telephone bills can be huge.Caretaking staff may have to arrange seating and other facilities for the visitors. This stops them from watching over the learning environment.Utility costs count against the school's budget.Teachers are often diverted from their statutory duties to minimise disruption.The curriculum is disrupted because teaching time is lost, and because breaks in routine excite students, ruin concentration and affect learning.Perhaps more Governing Bodies need to demand a halt to their budgets being plundered by this kind of stealth, and to fight for the statutory priorities of their own schools. Thu 25 Sep 2008 18:37:37 GMT+1 Parish Spinster After missing one smear, I was diagnosed with cervical cancer too advanced to operate. I was lucky - the simultaneous chemo and radiotherapy was successful, but I would not put my worst enemy through the experience.If the fear of pregnancy or HIV doesn't make people behave sensibly, I really can't see worry about HPV having any effect. It's almost as though they think that cervical cancer is a suitable punishment for sleeping around.We had out TB and smallpox jabs at school, it's the logical place to do it.A girl doesn't have to sleep around to get infected - she just has to marry a carrier. Thu 25 Sep 2008 17:02:13 GMT+1 Chris Ghoti Sid @ 84, yes, weasel-wording can cover utter unreasonableness, but I can't help feeling that telling people 'this is not something against religion' and advising them to have it done if they want to after looking at the evidence either way, just not at the school, makes me feel that the governers may genuinely have been wondering about the implications if it turns out (like the MMR) to be believed to be a Bad Thing in a few years' time, and whether they could then be sued.I thought the BCG wasn't an immunisation exactly, but a test to find out whether one needed an immunisation? My memory is that when I and all my friends had it done, only those whose arms failed to come up round the site of the rosette of pinpricks (which was what happened if people had a reaction showing that they had antibodies there, or some such) were advised that they needed a follow-up, or it may have been the other way round and the ones whose arms did swell and itch were told they needed to go on, but certainly not all of us seemed to be involved in a second round of injections. And I am certain that the test was done specifically, for my daughter's entire school, when one of the domestic staff developed TB in about 2003, which seems to imply that it hadn't already been done for everyone over a certain age...RachelG @ 85, if it was 'always' the case that schools participated in mass vaccination programmes, why did I not have a single vaccination at school, but always at my GP's surgery? Maybe some schools always have 'opted out' but without all this fuss being made?Which leads me to wonder, have any other schools decided not to do this, but because they were not Roman Catholic done so without being given any media attention? Thu 25 Sep 2008 15:40:49 GMT+1 lordBeddGelert Maybe I'm being thick here, but surely the school [indeed society] should be more worried about HIV than HPV as there is no immunisation against the former, & safe sex would also be effective against the latter ? So surely the school should be teaching the girls to use condoms rather than get in a tiz about this ? Ah, right, I see... Thu 25 Sep 2008 14:56:25 GMT+1 Nigel_N Now that we have all had a chance to read the letter, I would ask two questions:1) Have all school governing bodies been debating this issue; if not, why did this one choose to do so?2) If it had been a non-religious school that made this decision, would many of the above responses still have been made?The fact that the (unpaid) Chair of Governors chose not to make a statement on the PM programme might just be that they are busy with their own full-time job and unable to find the time to deal with all the journalists who have been requesting interviews. Thu 25 Sep 2008 12:39:56 GMT+1 The Stainless Steel Cat Heh. A comment from the Jeremy Vine programme; A dad writes that he's decided his daughter won't get the jab because he's not convinced it's been tested enough......but he thinks boys should have it as well.So, not good enough for his daughter, but fine for boys. Thu 25 Sep 2008 12:33:10 GMT+1 The Stainless Steel Cat Radio 2 discussion on this:Doctor focuses on the fact that it doesn't protect against *all* cerviacal cancers and also that it risks changing girls' sexual behaviour*, so he seems to be against the vaccination.The "Catholic writer" woman (Is that a writer who happens to be catholic or one who writes specifically on catholic matters I wonder) is fully behind the jab.Well done the Jeremy Vine people for confounding stereotypes.* I think we've demolished *that* argument here. Thu 25 Sep 2008 12:20:51 GMT+1 annasmummy Because its really likely that when contemplating whether or not to have casual sex, the average 15, 16 or 17 year old thinks to themselves:"now, I didn't get the HPV vaccine at my Catholic school, so I mustn't have sex" They're going to be thinking about many things, but this isn't one of them. The idea that giving young women a vaccine against a virus (that might cause cancer which that might kill them) is going to encourage them to have sex is ridiculous. Young people have sex because they have sex drives, they fancy each other and because that's what young people are programmed to do. Have all the governors of this school forgotten what its like to be young? Thu 25 Sep 2008 11:50:08 GMT+1 Mislein A young woman could refrain from sex until married and still become infected with this virus through her husband if he had had previous sexual partner/s.In whose interest is it to prevent a girl having this vaccination? If this was an illness suffered by men and transmitted in the same way would we have the same debate and boys being refused access to the vaccination through their schools? Thu 25 Sep 2008 10:36:20 GMT+1 pmmolly femblog(81)Let's hope that in ten years time we'll be wondering what all the fuss was about. Surely anything which reduces the number of tragic stories on this thread should be regarded as a step forward.It is not always easy to accept the sexuality of our daughters and 13 can seem very young in some ways.But that''s our problem. Thu 25 Sep 2008 09:11:58 GMT+1 RachelG Indeed, Sid. Schools have always participated in public health programmes, including mass vaccinations. The reason being that they are the ONLY universal service for children and simply the best way to ensure that the maximum number of children have access to public health measures. That is why we have a school nursing service, after all. The school's arguments in its letter are poor, basing its decision on nothing more (on the face of it) than a few girls feeling a bit poorly on the day after the injection. Doh! How many thirteen year olds do you know who'd take the chance to scive off school for the day on such flimsy excuse? I find it hard to believe this is their real reason and, as I've said before, unless the Chair of Govs comes out and defends the school's decision, I will continue to assume that their motives are more about sex than the safety of the vaccine. I want someone to ask Mr Browne where his evidence comes from that the school is not the appropriate place to deliver the vaccine and whether he has moral objections to the vaccine. He has a publically accountable role and should respond. Thu 25 Sep 2008 08:26:32 GMT+1 Sid Chris (82) - I largely agree with what you say. BUT - BCG vaccinations were a universal program delivered through UK schools until 2005.Also - many a 'perfectly reasonable letter' has disguised an ulterior motive! Thu 25 Sep 2008 07:51:40 GMT+1 vamsimadhav It's unethical to prohibit anyone who wants the vaccine, but the New England journal editorial advised caution because of many unanswered questions.It's hard to say right now how effective it is. Making it mandatory is using the U.S. as a public health experiment," said Tegan Millspaw, a research associate at Judicial Watch. so in the end it's upto the individulas to decide on the issue and as long as the school doesnot stop the girls getting vaccinated at their GP's, i dont see any problem.Even Merck suspended its lobbying to include the vaccine as part of mandatory school vaccinations. Thu 25 Sep 2008 02:47:59 GMT+1 Chris Ghoti TIH @ 79, that one works. Great! Thanks.nellynurse @ 78, I have now read the letter in full, and it nowhere suggests that pupils from the school were 'used as guinea pigs' that I can find. What it says is that when there was a pilot for the scheme last year (at the local clinic, not at the school -- is that part of the School Nursing service?), some pupils from the school experienced adverse side-effects and had to be sent home on the following day. It suggests that parents should look into the matter for themselves, and that they may wish to accompany their child when she has these vaccinations.It also says clearly that the Roman Catholic church's guidance (quoted) is not against the vaccine, but that the governors of the school feel that this is a medical matter rather than an educational one, that this aspect is not covered in the church guidance, and that they feel that the school is not the appropriate place for the vaccinations to be given.In all, it seems a perfectly reasonable letter, and doesn't seem to suggest anywhere that this decision is for religious reasons, but on the contrary that it has been made because they are unsure about the vaccine. I have to say that no school I ever attended, nor that any of my three children attended, ever oversaw or administered any routine vaccination of day pupils there, though when a case of tuberculosis occured (one of the domestic staff) every child in my daughter's school was given a test (?BCG?) at the school (after a letter of consent had been sent and returned: parents were given the option of arranging this for themselves, but the school were prepared to arrange it for us) and when each of my daughters was thirteen a letter was sent to us reminding us that we might want to arrange for her to have a rubella vaccination. They didn't offer to do it for us: they merely suggested that we might want to do something about it. In the same way they sent out letters warning us when there was a meningitis episode in a neighbouring school, and informing us of precautions we might want to take about the disease.Is it really now the responsibility of schools to arrange and administer routine vaccinations, unless they actively decline to do so? If so, has this school declined to administer any others, MMR for example? Wed 24 Sep 2008 22:30:40 GMT+1 femblog I was listening to the radio report on the vaccination for girls to help protects them against cervical cancer.My daughter bought her form home from school last week. We havediscussed as a family and decided against our daughter being vaccinated (thats our choice).My main worry and question is that this vaccine is being given to girlsfrom the age of 16 years+ in the USA.Why are we giving it to them so young here?Also I think it's about time that a vacine for boys was found. as I am led to believe that it is they who carry the disease that aids cervical cancer?I would also like to point out to some of the bloggers comments with regards to the school that has banned it from being used on their premises.It's about time some institutions stood their ground instead of bowing to pressure and political correctness.They haven't said that the girls could not have the vaccine, just not on their turf.You may be asking God to forgive you, if something amiss comes of this in the next ten years! Wed 24 Sep 2008 21:35:16 GMT+1 pollymatt st monica's is a fantastic school with a fantastic headteacher who I see hasn't commented on the governors letter. Surely within the context of being a catholic school they should have confidence in the values they are instilling in their pupils of both sexes not to believe that a mere jab will cause the girls to become promiscuous which is what seems to be behind this. Wed 24 Sep 2008 21:34:42 GMT+1 U10783173 Try this.Click on - View gallery (total of 2 images) - in red Wed 24 Sep 2008 20:40:35 GMT+1 nursenelly the other vaccine is called Gardasil and protects against the two strains of HPV that can cause cancer it also protects against genital warts.There are arguments on both sides.Gardisil offers the protection from warts.Cervirex, which is what the girls are having does not protect against these.There are argument that the body will convert the immunisation more effectively if there is "less" in it.I agree there is a financial element as Gardasil is more expensive.The vaccine has been tested vigorously and the claim in the school letter that the girls last year were used as guinea pigs is silly. It was not a trial of the vaccine, that has been proven. It was purely to see if the School Nursing service has to capacity to deliver the programme. Wed 24 Sep 2008 20:29:38 GMT+1 flyingSleeper It may have been said already but i doubt this decision would have been made if men had a cerevix. Wed 24 Sep 2008 20:12:58 GMT+1 Chris Ghoti TIH @ 75, drat it, this machine cheerfully tells me that the download of that bit of Daily Mail On Line has been successful, but displays an empty page.Bah Humbug.Thanks for trying! Wed 24 Sep 2008 20:09:25 GMT+1 U10783173 CG (69) and Rachel G (70) - Its here. Trouble is the Daily Mail headline doesn't reflect the content of the letter. No surprise really. Wed 24 Sep 2008 19:31:48 GMT+1 Cynique86 nursenelly @64I don't think that's quite right. Cervical cancer is associated with 2 strains of HPV, and the vaccine protects against these. Two other strains of HPV cause genital warts, and there is a vaccine against these but it was not the one chosen for the vaccination programme by the powers that be (again, it would seem to be health economics at play, although Case Notes on R4 also said Cerevix might be more effective). The cancer that is not prevented by this vaccine is not HPV related. Wed 24 Sep 2008 19:25:16 GMT+1 Chris Ghoti nn @ 71, yes, just so. This clearly isn't a simple matter of soundbite style or size, and we're trying to work out what's going on without having one side's view in full, only reports of other people's interpretation of that view. I want to know what the governors had to say, and the letter that they sent would at least be a start. Wed 24 Sep 2008 19:23:35 GMT+1 nursenelly Nikkiin fact MMR catch ups are given in Secondary School in year 10 when they young people get the last of their childhood immunisations.THere is a financial issue here took G.P.'s get paid to do the childhood imms up to Secondary School.If the school does not allow the HPV the financial implications will be interesting as School Nursing has received money from the Government to impliment the HPV programme..if G.P.'s get involved how will they be paid...they will not do it for nothing. Wed 24 Sep 2008 19:14:57 GMT+1 nikki noodle Hold your horses, for just a mo!!!The school has said the reasons why it doesnt want this programme rolled out on site, none of which are moral; Eddie has parked two sentences next to each other in the intro to this thread which appear to imply a link - but this is not borne out in the BBC News page.Is there not an issue about the Government issueing Medical programmes to children at school?! How many vaccinations should be carried out for each child? Should primary schools be the place for the MMR vaccine booster?We bloggers are quick to jump on a single issue; but I think there are deeper concerns here too. Wed 24 Sep 2008 18:55:13 GMT+1 RachelG You're right Chris, we should see the letter and the Chair of Govs should be explaining and defending the school's decision. In the absence of clarification from the school, we have to assume that this school is prepared to put some of its girls at risk of developing a disease that could be avoided. That is the implication of what the health professionals have said and I don't think the Chair of Govs has the qualifications to dispute it. Wed 24 Sep 2008 18:48:52 GMT+1 Chris Ghoti nursenelly @64, thank you: that's made things rather more clear for me.TIH, I hadn't at that point heard that the RC itself wasn't opposing this vaccination programme; thank you for underlining the point. It does make the governers' banning of the vaccine being given in the school seem even stranger. In fact it starts to seem as if the governers really may have some objection to the vaccination outside their religious views, on that basis.More and more, I would like to see the text of that letter in full! Wed 24 Sep 2008 18:28:21 GMT+1 CGrangerH Any lurking medics out there know whether this vaccination will be effective for HPV wart sufferers?I've a large number of planar warts on my hands, they aren't unsightly, and cause me no trouble, as far as I know... But hey, if there's now a virus that can stimulate the body's immune system against the cervical efects of this beastie, maybe it would work for people such as me too.I might also point out that my Mother, who also had a number of hand and arm HPV warts, died of ovarian cancer, though I know not if there may be any connection... Wed 24 Sep 2008 17:38:43 GMT+1 roslily As a teacher I am all for the local governance and power that a governing body can have, and mostly it works as they know more about the school etc. But this is something that the governemt should take a stand on and insist. As was said it will undermine the process, as many girls will not receive the jab at a surgey, nor will they complete the course. It is going to be administered by health professionals, in exactly the same way as it would be in surgery, so there is actually no excuse, even on the grounds of side-effects.This is why I don't agree with faith schools ( I am in fact an RE teacher, although an atheist one) although I do believe that ethics, religion and morality have a place in schools, not in decisions like this, and in the place of common sense decisions. Wed 24 Sep 2008 17:34:38 GMT+1 David_McNickle Isn't there a song called Vaccinating Rythym? Wed 24 Sep 2008 17:14:36 GMT+1 U10783173 Screamingmuldoon (52/53) - Interesting views but totally irrelevant. The Catholic Church hasn't objected. The Catholic Education Service has issued a statement saying it has no objection to the programme of injections. The school's stance comes despite support for the injections from the Salford Diocese and the Church nationally. Wed 24 Sep 2008 17:05:14 GMT+1 nursenelly Christhere is evidence that young people from socially deprived area have sex at an earlier age and have multiple partners although interestingly, barrier methods of contraception do not protect against HPV, the other thing HPV causes is genital warts, which can spread to the whole of the genital area.I think I remember reading somewhere that smoking also increased the risk of cervical cancer.The nun thing is interesting, they get breast cancer because they do not breast feed, which is thought to be a protective measure against this.What a choice the poor things have, either cervical or breast cancer a no win situation.The 70% protection is because the current vaccine Cervirex protects against two strains of the virus, a vaccine to tackle the others has not yet been produced. Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:57:23 GMT+1 halfwaylady If I had a daughter at this school I would feel very insulted by this decision. It doesn't say much for a 'good Catholic upbringing' if they think a vaccination will encourage girls to be promiscuous. Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:53:38 GMT+1 Chris Ghoti Screamingmuldoon @ 52, I too remember that as being said (the 'nuns don't get cervical cancer' one; it is linked in my mind with 'nuns are more prone to breast-cancer', from about the same time).Now, today, the health spokesman person for the area in which the school we're looking at is, has just said something to the effect 'and we know that girls from socially deprived backgrounds are more prone to cervical cancer'. I assume he isn't being inaccurate and that this is the case, and it leads to other questions:Does this mean that girls from socially deprived backgrounds are more likely to be sexually active? Or does it mean that there are causes of cervical cancer other than sexual activity? If the latter, what business would the Catholic school have assuming that the disease is linked with and only with sexual activity? (I undersatnd that the vaccine is effective against 70% of the cause of this disease: what about the other 30%?)Though it also seems from the report that what they *said* in their letter to parents was that they were unsure about the safety and efficacy of the vaccination, rather than only that they thought it would encourage their pupils to have sex casually...Has anyone put the actual text of that letter onto the web anywhere, does anyone happen t know? I've seen the excerpts, but the full text would be better. And has this school suggested that other vaccines are not appropriate for administration at school, or is it only this one and only really because of the sexual connection? Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:49:26 GMT+1 nursenelly to answer Karnuvap comment, not sure, I am sure they participate in the other immunisation programmes for year 10 children to have there tetanus etc,I thought there main objection was not to the religious side of things but to the fact some girls had time off last year and they are asking parents to look into the value of having this vaccination ie does it work is it safe. THinkg I hope all parents of year 8 girls will be asking.Where I work we had open evenings for parents to come and get more information about the vaccine and an opportunity for them to ask questions.It is a hard decision but I have nursed young women aged 32 year who have died of cervical cancer and I can tell you it is not easy to do that, it was pretty unpleasant. Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:46:09 GMT+1 sallyc70 This is so crazy. Of course we must vaccinate. I have had 6 miscarriages very late in pregnancy, all heartbreaking and all because I had HPV which turned into pre cancerous cells. This meant to avoid fully blown cancer I had to have an operation to remove a tiny amount of my cervix. Unfortunately whilst unavoidable this operation resulted in an incompetent cervix which can not hold a pregnancy beyond 24 weeks. I might never have children. It upsets me every day. How can responsible adults risk the next generation going through this when it is now avoidable. it's so crazy it makes me want to cry! Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:38:21 GMT+1 nursenelly Just hear the interview, thought the school came out badly not having a representative. I am a Chair of Governors and if my school made such a bold move I would expect me to back it up.The whole idea of doing vaccinations in school is there is a "captive" audience....parents do not have to remember 6 months down the line their daughter has to have her third injection.I feel the school biggest complaint is that pupils were off last year after they had it, Bury and Stockport had a trial of the way is delivered and if it is possible for school nurses to deliver this in their already busy lives. Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:34:36 GMT+1 Karnuvap We seem to have strayed from the point. I would like to ask if this school bans all immunisation programs or just those that are related to sex? Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:32:41 GMT+1 bunnyspangle Yet again (as with AIDS in Africa) the catholic church showing their own fanatical dogma is more important than human life and the battle against cancer. Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:31:47 GMT+1 cadet562 My daughter had a cervical smear at uni when she was only 21. She had slept with one boy only & yet the result of the smear showed severe cell changes which required immediate laser treatment to be repeated again 10 years later. The chances of her being able to give birth naturally were diminished due to the cervix being so thin. Wake up everybody, at least give our girls the opportunity to avoid something which at the end of the day is transmitted by men!!! Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:30:40 GMT+1 U11235707 @48Try a real education on the subject: Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:28:22 GMT+1 Lady_Sue Come on chaps. This is a serious issue and not a platform for slinging for or against feminism. (40) JG: I think your comment is a tad extreme. Do try to see beyond blaming anyone and acknowledge that if anything can be done to prevent any form of cancer, it's a good thing. Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:26:52 GMT+1 Screamingmuldoon PS - I was taking to an active catholic about this today and she said "I am church going and I believe in the Catholic church, but I don't listen to any sh*t" Mmmmmm Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:26:00 GMT+1 Screamingmuldoon @ 4 Nuns - the old fashioned sort who are virgins - don't get cervical cancer. I remember reading that when this vaccine was being researched years ago. Don't know if they're the same nuns who don't get Alzhiemers because they do crosswords and the like. Anyway, the link between cervical cancer and sexual activity seems to be established therefore the Catholic Church has to say something. It's in the contract. Doesn't mean we have to listen. Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:24:21 GMT+1 Big Sister I doubt it, JG. Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:20:09 GMT+1 U11235707 @46I was taught by a feminist. Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:16:58 GMT+1 U11235707 @45I lived in Manchester from 1979 to 1995; which is where I saw the feminist movement fester until its full foetid bloom.But now I'm back on the Island I was born on, I notice how many of you mainlanders seek refuge over here. Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:15:43 GMT+1 mittfh JG @35: And there were fewer grammatical errors? :)Meanwhile, I decided to do a spot of lazy research (Wiktionary and Wikipedia), and I'm fairly certain you'd agree with at least some of the following:First of all, the dictionary definition: feminism (uncountable) 1. A social theory or political movement supporting the equality of both sexes in all aspects of public and private life; specifically, a theory or movement that argues that legal and social restrictions on females must be removed in order to bring about such equality.Feminism and feminists have campaigned on:First wave: overcoming legal obstacles to equality, equal contract and property rights for women, the opposition to chattel marriage and ownership of married women (and their children) by their husbands, the right of women's suffrage.Second wave: overcoming de facto obstacles to equality, e.g. co-education, careers, representations in the media (i.e. that women could only find fulfillment through childrearing and homemaking)Third wave: in progress. Workplace issues such as the glass ceiling, sexual harassment, unfair maternity leave policies, motherhood—support for single mothers by means of welfare and child care and respect for working mothers and mothers who decide to leave their careers to raise their children full-time.However, there seems to be a debate within the movement on how best to achieve equity. Some think it's best achieved by giving women preferential treatment in such areas as spousal abuse, child custody, sexual harassment, divorce proceedings, and pay equity. Others think that doing so amounts to reverse discrimination.I suspect its more the "preferential treatment" wing of feminism you don't agree with rather than feminism per se. Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:10:45 GMT+1 U11235707 It appears that each year 1000 women die of cervical cancer; whereas 10,000 men die of prostate cancer each year.So can we can expect 10 times more money spent on prostate cancer as is spent on the cervix fix!? Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:08:57 GMT+1 Big Sister JG (35):"And there was less spelling mistakes!"Shame about the grammar! Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:06:11 GMT+1 Fearless Fred JG, Nowhere have I seen it proposed that the male half of the population are the "source of cancer". I think your prejudices are showing a little. Why not come over the solent to the mainland, and see what life is like for the majority of UK residents? Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:05:24 GMT+1 Big Sister I'll rephrase that JG: 42- "Good question; I would simply have all expenditure paid to feminist causes stopped."I think you need to expand that point. Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:04:56 GMT+1 Big Sister JG: Good question; I would simply have all expenditure paid to feminist causes stopped.I think you need to expand that point. Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:04:03 GMT+1 U11235707 @41Good question; I would simply have all expenditure paid to feminist causes stopped.So there would be a gross gain of money for the British economy. Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:00:49 GMT+1 U10783173 JG (34) - Sorry I missed this one.!I would use the money to counter the feminist scourge."Go on James, what is the strategy?Who are your first targets?What sort of budget do you envisage?Do you have a team to help you or are you a one-man band? Or perhaps a one non-woman band?What can I do to help? Wed 24 Sep 2008 15:56:41 GMT+1 U11235707 @39The campaign is all about regarding the man as the source of cancer.And let me know when feminists argue for the equality of health funding; such as paying as much for prostate cancer as is spent on breast cancer. Wed 24 Sep 2008 15:30:15 GMT+1 Fearless Fred How can vaccination against a disease be classed as feminism, JG? Wed 24 Sep 2008 15:25:54 GMT+1 U11235707 @37Hehehe.... I'm not that old.Why do you support the feminists TSSC? Wed 24 Sep 2008 15:15:17 GMT+1 The Stainless Steel Cat JimmyOneTrack (33)"I am not an MCP"But, I'd always pictured you as a Municipal Car Park!* You've cruelly shattered my illusions.*Grey, empty and largely unchanged since the 1950's. Wed 24 Sep 2008 15:13:10 GMT+1 justfloating Vaccinate against the main causes of cervical cancer. It does not mean no more cervical screening.It is not anything like a smallpox vaccination that works at 95%. Even if this was perfect it only gets 70% of the causes of cervical cancer. Wed 24 Sep 2008 15:10:06 GMT+1 U11235707 @34And there was less spelling mistakes! Wed 24 Sep 2008 15:05:56 GMT+1 U11235707 @31Before the feminist shadow descended on the land, their were more fathers in families; and their was correspondingly less juvenile delinquency.I would use the money to counter the feminist scourge. Wed 24 Sep 2008 15:04:59 GMT+1 U11235707 @28How can criticising feminists and feminism, be regarded as male chauvinism.If you meant chauvinism against feminists and feminism, then yes, I admit to being their enemy. But I like women who are not feminists, therefore I am not an MCP. Wed 24 Sep 2008 14:59:59 GMT+1 U10783173 JG - Not very bright are you?TSSC wrote:"vaccinating only girls halves the cost, but is hopefully more than half as effective as doing everyone."Cynique86 wrote: "For this so called 'herd immunity', uptake needs to be >90%."The two statements are perfectly OK. Neither contradicts the other. Your logic is as good as your views are interesting. Wed 24 Sep 2008 14:55:52 GMT+1 The Stainless Steel Cat Jim (27):I hope that post means you're going to put your time (and possibly donations of money to help make up the other 50% of the cost) towards ensuring that >90% of all young people are vaccinated?I'm guessing you don't have daughters. Do you have any sons? Would you take them to the doctor to ensure they were vaccinated? Wed 24 Sep 2008 14:52:08 GMT+1 justfloating I just looked into the testing and the main studies were for over 15 year olds. What is the effect of loading up the immune system of a child prior to development? Even the tests show a 2 fold increase is response for the younger girls. w.r.t the older group!The tests on 10 - 14 year olds were in 2004-2005 (HPV-012 HPV-013) so the youngest will still not have grown up. I only saw testing numbers of about 1200 children.In simple terms I know that when fighting one viral infection my body sometimes loses the fight with another. Does loading up a child to fight one type of infection compromise their ability to fight others as effectively?Read the reports: google "H-721-en6.pdf"I am glad I do not have a daughter: I could not make this choice.But I know I would have liked to be protected from certain viral infections in early life. So the choice I think would be when, not whether. Wed 24 Sep 2008 14:47:43 GMT+1 DI_Wyman LOL..Exam ResultsPublic Examinations - 2007St Monica's broke the Bury 5 A*-C record by recording 86% 5 A*-C. St Monica's has previously helf the record with 83% 5 A*-C. It was the best year in the school's history for both boys and girls results with the girls recording 90.32% 5 A*-C and the boys acheiving 80.73% 5 A*-C. The school also recorded 100% pass rate of 5 A*-G.damn that F key for being sooo close to the D key! Wed 24 Sep 2008 14:45:13 GMT+1 mittfh Strictly speaking, the vaccine cannot prevent cancer, but can encourage the body to launch an immune response against a specific carcinogen, hopefully before it's infected the cells...In general, cancer occurs when a cell starts dividing out of control. This is either because the genes or the molecules they encode which are responsible for regulating cell division have been mutated, or genes/molecules involved in apoptosis (programmed cell death - when a cell dismantles itself, usually because it has been damaged beyond repair). It can occur naturally through random mutation, but more usually it is associated with a carcinogen (a chemical which either directly promotes cancer or helps it propagate).-oOo-Meanwhile, how unsurprising that our resident MCP is in full flow... Wed 24 Sep 2008 14:41:15 GMT+1 U11235707 @26TSSC wrote:"vaccinating only girls halves the cost, but is hopefully more than half as effective as doing everyone."Cynique86 wrote: "For this so called 'herd immunity', uptake needs to be >90%."Seems it was quite a lot of 'your bad'. Wed 24 Sep 2008 14:37:42 GMT+1 The Stainless Steel Cat Horse (23):I assumed you knew, I was just doing my bit to educate JimmyOneTrack. I should have headed it for his attention. As our American cousins rather ungrammatically and bewilderingly say, "My bad." Wed 24 Sep 2008 14:29:22 GMT+1 U11235707 @23A womb with a view; test-tubes clinked across a crowded lab.Do you know your father, or are you mummy's clone? Wed 24 Sep 2008 14:27:13 GMT+1 Chris Ghoti MAII @1, I posted this before but it has vanished like the dew on the mountain, so I'll try again...I know about the ethical, secular and scientific objections to the fluoridation of the water supply, but I hadn't realised that there had been religious objections to it as well. What are they? Do tell! Wed 24 Sep 2008 14:24:34 GMT+1 U10783173 JG (21) - Wouldn't have made any difference - I'm the product of AI.SSCat (22) - I know. I was only pointing out to the PostalOrder how stupid his comment was. Wed 24 Sep 2008 14:19:12 GMT+1 The Stainless Steel Cat Horse (19):In fact from anyone who hasn't been vaccinated. But as cynique86 points out at (16), vaccinating only girls halves the cost, but is hopefully more than half as effective as doing everyone.RachelG (20):You're right about the school's logic - they seem to be implying that only extra-marital sex can pass this virus. IMO it's only a short step from saying that to saying that the virus itself is a judgement from on high.Perhaps if Eddie's speaking to someone from the school on air, he can - just in passing and in the spirit of helpful information - mention to them that their uniform policy is contravening the guidelines? :o) Wed 24 Sep 2008 14:13:03 GMT+1 U11235707 @19No diagrams please; but a diaphragm might have come in handy, especially if fitted to Mrs The Intermittent Horse Snr. Wed 24 Sep 2008 14:11:48 GMT+1 RachelG GM (17) - "massively misguided" is a very polite way of putting it, I feel. Quite apart from the obvious reasons to feel outraged by this decision, I can't help feeling it sends a terrible message to the girls at this school about what their Governors think of them ie, that it is the fear of contracting HPV that is stopping them having underage sex. What warped logic.Incidentally, I notice that this state school has a notice on its home page warning parents against buying a "copy" of the school blazer from a local sports shop and effectively telling them they have to use the school's authorised supplier. Such a policy contravenes new guidelines issued earlier this year: "Affordability and availability: * schools should be sensitive to the cost implications of their choice of uniform. The chosen uniform should be available at high street shops and other retail outlets, rather than solely from an expensive sole supplier * expensive, exclusive agreements may be subject to enforcement action according to the Office of Fair Trading"I suggest that Ofsted peer very closely into this school's affairs next time it visits. Wed 24 Sep 2008 14:00:27 GMT+1 U10783173 JG (15) _ They probably get it from women who get it from men. Would a diagram help? Wed 24 Sep 2008 13:50:43 GMT+1 Fearless Fred gm (17) Agreed. To believe that by vaccinating a girl she is then more likely to have sex is akin to saying that because a woman is employed ahead of a man for a job, she must have been hired because of positively discimination... Wed 24 Sep 2008 13:49:16 GMT+1 gossipmistress I think the school is massively misguided. Are they denying that their girls will EVER have sex? This is a longterm protection thing, not just to protect them while they're 12 or 13. Crazy. Wed 24 Sep 2008 13:46:07 GMT+1 Cynique86 The point about boys is as follows:Immunisation programmes have two ways of being effective; they protect the individual who has been vaccinated, and if sufficient numbers in the population are vaccinated, they protect the small minority who haven't been vaccinated. For this so called 'herd immunity', uptake needs to be >90%. That means boys too. The decision is a health ecomonics one, and that's a different debate. Wed 24 Sep 2008 13:32:25 GMT+1 U11235707 @13And where do these men get the diseases from, that they may pass it on? Wed 24 Sep 2008 13:11:49 GMT+1 U11235707 @12What point about boys? Wed 24 Sep 2008 12:47:49 GMT+1 mistysyringa As the Catholic Church is anti contraception, when a female becomes sexually active (even if she does wait until marriage) she is expected to 'take her chance' with contracting ANY sexual disease that the man may pass on. Where is the sense in that? Wed 24 Sep 2008 12:46:20 GMT+1 Big Sister justfloating: Your point about boys is well made, and there was an interesting discussion about this point on Radio 4 a couple of weeks ago. From what I gather, it's something they may look at in due course. Wed 24 Sep 2008 12:33:36 GMT+1 justfloating Why not boys as well? The virus has to get there. Shutting down the transport mechanism is as important as protection. Considering other acts also lead to HPV caused cancers why is it being given out unfairly.As for "vaccinate ... against cervical cancer". That definitely proves that the message has not really been communicated properly. If the BBC can not get it right how could a 12 year old. Wed 24 Sep 2008 12:21:58 GMT+1 Big Sister 5: B O Wed 24 Sep 2008 12:17:37 GMT+1 The Stainless Steel Cat To quote the lawyer Henry Drummond in the excellent 1960 film "Inherit The Wind" (played by Spencer Tracey):"...with banners flying and with drums beating we'll be marching backward, BACKWARD, through the glorious ages of the Sixteenth Century..."I hope this school isn't receiving any of my tax money to push it's mediaeval ideas? Wed 24 Sep 2008 12:04:50 GMT+1 Fifi This reminds me of the old argument that sex education encourages promiscuity. Hmmmm.I would be a bit more impressed if the school had come right out and clearly expressed a moral objection, rather than the 'inappropriate on school premises' waffle. The way they have done it robs parents or indeed the girls themselves of anything with which to agree or disagree - the use of 'communication' to stifle debate. Wed 24 Sep 2008 11:59:31 GMT+1 patmartin Once more supersticious nonsense (otherwise known as religion) is out to cause unnecessary suffering. Already in today's papers we've had the story of the Jehovah's Witness who was shot by her daughter's spurned boyfriend refusing a blood transfusion thereby possibly depriving her daughters of both parents rather than just the one who died in the incident. Having had a friend who died from cervical cancer and seen the suffering she went through I would encourage parents whose children are denied the vaccine at school to ask their GP to carry out the procedure. Wed 24 Sep 2008 11:58:56 GMT+1 nikki noodle DNFTTFrom the point of view of child welfare, two issues are:(1) are ALL girls best served by having this intervention on school premisses?What side effects does the vaccine cause?The most common side effect is mild to moderate swelling, redness and pain at the site of injection. Other mild side effects such as slightly raised temperature, sickness, dizziness, diarrhoea and muscle aches were reported in less than one in 1000 people.Very rarely, some people have an allergic reaction soon after immunisation. This reaction may be a rash or itching affecting part or all of the body. Even more rarely, some people can have a severe reaction soon after the immunisation which causes breathing difficulties and may cause the person to collapse (anaphylaxis). This type of reaction is extremely rare and health professionals administering vaccinations are trained to deal with it.(2) Do boys receive the (unintended) message that when having sex, that it is only the girl who needs to think about protection, disease, viruses etc? Wed 24 Sep 2008 11:58:48 GMT+1 U11235707 @4You use the expression "defence for not having sex".Do you feminists regard love making as an 'attack'? Wed 24 Sep 2008 11:53:00 GMT+1