What's this about
Chamber Of Debate
10 December 11
Chamber of Debate
CERVICAL CANCER VACCINE
A CATHOLIC school has become the first in the country to block a project to vaccinate girls against cervical cancer.
Governors of St Monica's High School in Bury - who have previously criticised the jab for `encouraging sexual promiscuity' - have decided they don't want pupils vaccinated on school grounds.
The government plans to give injections to girls aged 12 and 13 to protect them against the sexually-transmitted papilloma virus, linked to cervical cancer.
Experts believe the programme, which consists of three injections over six months, will eventually save hundreds of lives a year.
The programme has already started in some parts of the country, including Oldham, and pupils in Bury are expected to begin vaccinations over the next few weeks.
But governors at 1,200-pupil St Monica's High have sent a letter to parents outlining objections.
The letter points out that the vaccine protects against only 70 per cent of cervical cancers, and gives details of possible side-effects to the jab.
The letter from chair of governors Martin Browne says: "We do not believe that school is the right place for the three injections to be administered.
"Therefore, governors have taken the decision not to allow the school premises to be used for this programme."
It does not mention any moral objections, but speaking about the pilot scheme last year, school governor Monsignor John Allen said pupils were being used as `guinea pigs'.
He said: "Morally it seems to be a sticking plaster response. Parents must consider the knock-on effect of encouraging sexual promiscuity
"Instead of taking it for granted that teenagers will engage in sexual activity, we can offer a vision of a full life keeping yourself for a lifelong partnership in marriage."
The school's stance comes despite support for the injections from the Salford Diocese and the Church nationally.
Governors confirmed they had discussed the vaccine at a recent meeting, but head Frank McCarron was unavailable for comment
The M.E.N. could not contact Mr Browne and no one at the school was willing to comment.
The £100million annual vaccine programme from September aims to protect girls aged 12 and 13 against HPV, the sexually transmitted virus which causes 70 per cent of all cervical cancer.
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2008/09/anti-cervical-cancer-drug-shunned-by.html for an alternative and trenchant view on the dangers of giving impressionable schoolgirls the wrong message
Should teenage schoolgirls be vaccinated at taxpayers' expense against cervical cancer?
Our Unique Parallel Polling System
(One Member One Vote)
(One Member Multiple Votes)
AAA Awarded members only.
absolutely. having a vaccination will in no way suddenly have girls chomping at the bit for underage sex as a direct result. should every schoolgirl in the country be vaccinated i feel that the number of incidents of underage age sex will not see a significant, if any, rise at all. There are many reasons why girls are active at such a young age and none of them are medical either directly or by intimation.
"A stitch in time is worth nine".
Cheaper to pay for the vaccinations than for the cancer treatments and related social costs of cervical cancer at a later date.
I cannot see how protecting women from one of many STDs will encourage them into careless and irresponsible sexual behaviour. If they understand the nature of this disease sufficiently well to appreciate what the vaccine will do, then they will be aware of the other risks that attend sexual promiscuity – this treatment will make no difference to their lifestyle.
Sadly, it is also the case that innocent women can and do fall foul of the misbehaviour of their only partner if his sexual history has resulted in him being a carrier of this or other diseases. Do we condemn all women because we disapprove of the reckless?
The health of everyone must be a priority and where protection against disease can be given then it should.
The vaccination should be accompanied by lessons on the dangers of unsafe sex, promiscuity, single parenthood and the virtues of commitment to one sexual partner. Hence, the state is giving you some protection, but the best protection is abstinence.
I don't believe that we are that keen to pay for each other's cancer treatments, and believe that the NHS is making free with taxpayers' money on this controversial treatment that no one even asked for and most parents and girls do not want.
The point I was making is that teenage schoolgirls will get the message that it is OK to have sex, leading inevitably to more teenage pregnancies, more illegitimate children.
The other point is that the government is wasting taxpayers' money yet again.
If parents want their daughters vaccinated, they should do so at their own expense.
How about we care if you die of cancer and would like to prevent it if possible.
How typical that the state should be paying good money to encourage precisely the very activity that will make teenage pregnancy more likely.
What sort of message does this free anti-cervical cancer vaccine give British schoolgirls?
Let me venture to put it together in way even a sink-school educated British schoolgirl can understand:
(1) No need to worry about getting sexually-transmitted cervical cancer after the jab.
(2) It is OK to have unprotected sex when you have the jab.
(3) It is OK to have sex as soon as you have the jab.
Do we really need to encourage them to have more sex??
Is this the sort of message we want to give to the mothers of the next generation of illegitimate children?
for horrifying statistics on the crime rate amongst the illegitimate and the singly-parented.
All comments are subject to approval.
- My Profile
- Edit My Profile
- Reset My Password
- Quick Search
- Advanced Search
- Name Search
- Saved Search
- Who is Online
- List of Correspondents
- Blocked Members
- Refer a Friend
- Chamber of Debate
- Classified Advertisements
- AAA Award
What's this about
, All Rights Reserved