nv1962

Amazing news that I read on the NY Times site today. I think it’s worth reading and thinking over a bit. The article is here:

Vaccine Appears to Prevent Cervical Cancer

It’ll be a few years before the vaccine becomes generally available, but it looks quite promising:

In a study of 2,392 young women, half of them vaccinated and half given placebo shots, the vaccine was 100 percent effective.

The vaccine is preventive so it doesn’t help in treating developing cases of cervical cancer. Also, as I understand it, cervical cancer is provoked typically through viral infections. The vaccine tested impacts on one type, that causes half of all cases of cervical cancer, but Merck — the developer of that vaccine — is currently working on another one, that would be effective against multiple viruses that together account for 70% of cervical cancer.

So far, so good: being able to prevent 70% would be wonderful. But then!

Those viruses don’t fall out of the sky. They’re part of the STD package. In other words, men are very much an active ingredient of the equation. Therefore, the vaccination would be truly effective if men, too, were given the preventive injection. The developers of the vaccine clearly have thought about that:

The vaccine will also protect against two other HPV types, 6 and 11, which cause about 90 percent of genital warts. The wart protection was included to “give incentive to young men to also take the vaccine,” Dr. Jansen said. She explained: “Men don’t get cervical cancer. I always strongly felt that if we only go for cervical cancer types, there would be no reason for men to accept the vaccine. Even though they are vectors for transmitting the virus, they don’t usually have effects.” But men do get genital warts, and many young men are eager to avoid them since they are ugly and may repel potential sex partners, Dr. Jansen said.

So, in order to make the vaccine ‘viable’ — that is, acceptable to women and men — an ingredient is added with psychological appeal to men? Something to think about. Are men generally that much self-oriented that they’d be willing to help protect their partner only if their own interest is tickled?

Another underlying, in my opinion important issue that is mentioned in that article is an element common to sexuality and parental responsibility in general: the widespread taboo on promoting STD prevention among young teenagers by means other than abstinence.

Koutsky said it had been suggested that many parents, loath to acknowledge that their teenage daughters could be sexually active, would refuse the vaccine. But, she said, “I think a generational shift has occurred, where most parents recognize that their children will make decisions about sexual activity that they have no control over, and they want them to be protected.”

I’d like to hope Dr. Koutsky’s right. Stuff to ponder: how much do we care for the women in our life?