Once again, the vaccines for thwarting HPV, notably Merck's Gardasil, are causing a stir. In the latest dust up, the California Catholic Conference is urging state residents to contact their legislators to oppose a bill that would remove parental consent for vaccinating children 12 and older against sexually transmitted diseases.
Although California law already allows children 12 and older to consent to treatment for sexually transmitted diseases without involvement from their parents, the proposed bill would expand that right to immunizations (read the bill here).
In an action alert, the bishops' group warns parents that "minors do not have adequate judgment to make a decision about a vaccine that as of January 15, 2011, had 21,171 adverse reactions and 91 deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
"Most parents are involved in the lives of their minor children and need to know if they are seeking medical care, regardless of whether the care is curative or preventative. This bill appears to be an 'end run' following the failure in 2007 to mandate HPV vaccination for all girls entering public junior high school - a measure strongly opposed by parents’ rights groups and vetoed by the Governor."
Of course, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention long ago deemed Gardasil as a needed public health tool. The FDA in 2006 approved the vaccine to protect against the 6, 11, 16 and 18 strains of the human papillomavirus, which can lead to cervical cancer, in girls and women ages 9 to 26. However, the agency has repeatedly rejected its use in older women (see here). More recently, GlaxoSmithKline won approval to market Cervarix.
Yet even before Gardasil was approved, the notion of such a vaccine began triggering concerns among some parents and social conservatives that widespread availability may offer teenagers a green light for premarital sex. At the same time, some vaccine opponents have continually pointed to side effect reports and lobbied the FDA to rescind approval (see this).
Those twin themes are now being repeated by Catholics for the Common Good. On its web site, William May, who chairs the organization, writes that the proposed bill is a "sinister agenda of sexualizing our children" and then asks "how can a 12-year-old evaluate risks and statistics? How do their brains process such information? Has there ever been a study on that?
"Children can be easily intimidated or influenced by the authority of adults," he continues. "There is money to be made by administering these vaccines and other drugs by the drug companies and service providers (like Planned Parenthood). What protects children from coercion driven by the profit motive?"
The sinister agenda that May mentions may have been stoked by the aggressive, behind-the-scenes lobbying by Merck, which sought to push mandatory vaccination around the country. That effort backfired, though, after its tactics became publicized (see here and here).
We have left a message with California Assemblywoman Toni Atkins, who introduced the bill, for her reaction to this opposition and will update you accordingly. UPDATE: Atkins called us to say the impetus for the bill was a combination of her own interest in health care and an approach by the American College of Gynecology, which helped her gather data to craft the bill. In the past, she says she has received as much as $1,000 in funding from Glaxo, but nothing from Merck. And neither drugmaker, she adds, ever contacted her about the bill.
ANOTHER UPDATE: However, as a loyal reader points out, Merck provided $477,000 in program support, publication distribution and research awards to ACOG last year (see here). And there were $97,000 in continuing education grants awarded in the first quarter of 2011 (see this).
As to the criticism, Atkins says the bill "is closing the gap between the past and increasing technologies that allow minors access to prevention, diagnosis and treatment...I'm not surprised they're critical, though. Their position on reproductive health issues, as they relate to women and minors, has always been one of opposition...They were opposed to abortion rights for women in California. My hope is to follow the science and the recommendations of the CDC."
24 Comments
There are several studies about how pre-teens process information on risk. And there are many pre-teens who participate in fantasy sports leagues, which are about statistics. Perhaps if Mr May carved a minute or two out of his demagoguing schedule to google this info he would make a more informed social critique.
I'm also not sure exactly what his concern is. That this initiative is undermining the (former) governor's 2007 veto? Or that the side effect risk is too high? Or that drug companies are greedy? Or that girls will become more sexually active? I have the sneaking suspicion that his real concern is the last one, but right now he's throwing spaghetti at the wall & seeing what sticks.
Maybe they should just give the Gardasil shots when they\'re handing out the condoms in, what is in now in California, the fourth grade? Get rid of any and all parental rights?
Or here's another idea: How about locking up the older guys having sex with 12 year olds?
I agree with SP, May is clearly trying to find an argument that will just stick but isn't as obvious as his unwillngness to accept that some young girls have sex. Gardasil wasn't created to give young girls a free pass to sexual intercourse... It's a preventative measure to guard against HPV. Young girls should be encouraged to get it, not told that abstinence is the only way. This has nothing to do with authority, or greed, just health. He's wasting his time arguing it.
This has nothing to do with good health. Tens of thousands of adverse reactions. The vaccine should be recalled. This has everything to do with big pharma pushing, whether Toni wants to admit it or not.
I may be wrong in thinking that informed consent is sort of like a contract (maybe only when it is used as a defense) and I wasn\'t aware a minor child could enter into, and be legally bound to, contracts. Considering the nature of vaccine courts - that thinking is probably surperfluous anyway. How can anyone scoff about the ignorance and irresponsibility of drug consumers (I have seen it over and over again) and then choose the most uninformed and irresponsible target. It is insulting. Particularly if every scrap of data is not disclosed LOUDLY.
People of that age do not make well thought out decisions. If all of your friends are doing it...
We apparently assume too much regarding safety (shall I make a list?) as it is. Of course, a child would not know that. Let\'s not trade one health issue for another. Who is going to be responsible?
I don't like the idea of any company or state encouraging 12 year olds to go behind their parents' backs. And the notion that this is about health? What if the kid has trouble with anxiety or with sleeping or some other health problem -- should they be able to get anti-depressants or sleeping pills without parental authority? Hell, no.
And who pays for this and for any follow-up care due to adverse reactions, or drug-drug interactions? Is it Merck? The State of California? Or do they expect the unconsulted parents to pick up the tab?
Honestly, if I were personally affected by this I would make sure that no Merck products ever came into my house in the future.
I am absolutely appalled at the thought that parental rights could be ripped away under the guise of such an obvious profiteering scheme.
Gardasil costs close to $400 for the 3-shot series. Do they plan on sending the bill to parents who never would have allowed their 12-year-old to be vaccinated to begin with?
When I read the article yesterday, I posted it on Facebook as an example of the kind of stories that have me wondering lately whether I'm living in the Twilight Zone.
How did our country even get to this point where the government can pass laws and wipe out the most basic and all important rights of parents to make decisions regarding the medical care of their own 12-year-old children?
I'd bet big bucks that in the time period since Gardasil came on the market, more girls have died after receiving the shots than the number of underage girls diagnosed with cervical cancer. In fact, I've never heard of any girl under 18 with cervical cancer. I've never even heard of anyone dying from it out all the women I've known in 60 years on earth.
Gardasil deaths are mentioned most because it's the worst that can happen, but there are many other serious side effects with this vaccine. If it was up to me, it would be banned altogether.
I wonder if parents would be able to bring assault charges against anyone who gave the Gardasil shots to their minor child without their consent?
And EP is right, this really is Twilight Zone stuff. A young girl can be busted/expelled for taking a single Motrin to school for her own menstual pain, a school nurse can't hand out as much as an aspirin without written permission from a parent or guardian, but Planned Parenthood and the like can give Gardasil shots to minors? 12 year old minors?
And, let's not forget that Gardasil involves needles, punctured skin, and the added dangers with that that I don't need to go into here. Even the drug-store clinics where I live don't do anything that punctures the skin.
The bill involves far more than vaccines according to a gal over on my fb page. She says it allows kids to take mental health drugs without a parent's consent or knowledge too. It's much worse than it sounds.
All I can say is I find all of it unbelievable.
One more thing, Ed's killing me with that security code being I'm almost as blind as a bat. I haven't typed it correctly on the first try even once.
While the American College of Gynecology's total budget includes only a small percentage from industry contributions, well over half of those contributions came from Merck in 2010. Merck is one of about forty companies that contributed to ACOG in that year. As Ed would say, see here:
http://www.acog.org/from_home/misc/industryFunding2010.pdf
I think I've seen payments to that group in the grant reports of more drug companies than just Merck in years past.
I'll try to remember to check it out. I save all the grant reports in my computer.
It is a crime to legislate away the parental protection from a child in order to make a killing profit for Merck and Cal.assembly women Akins, (Gov.Perry), et el. ~ Thank God for Bill May that California parents have him to fight for their parental rights to protect their kids!
Texas Governor, Rick Perry was part of this Gardasil sham (a few years back)...
He's done some good things here in Texas... more new jobs than the other 49 states combined... He's been, in many ways a good Governor.
Moot.
He went after young girls... helped target them for a drug company, and never faced a trial...
Rick Perry. A Governor with criminal behavor.
A lot of that going on lately.
Duane
Atkins appears to be a liberal, pro-life, women's rights assemblywomen who views availability of Gardasil in that context. A lot of the supporters of mandatory HPV vaccination in Michigan a few years ago were on the same political side, opposed, as here, by social conservatives and a smaller group of lefterly folks who were suspicious of Merck (especially post Vioxx), of pharma more generally, and then had the Rick Perry/Women in Government thing to add fuel to fire.
Yes, as the Rothmans reported in JAMA in 2009, Merck very involved with ACOG and similar groups creating, in essence, "educational" materials and scripts for patients, providers, et. al.
Atkins is the kind of "women's rights" advocate who stomps all over the rights of "women" who "choose" to be "mothers".
Good point gia. I don't consider any person an advocate for women's rights who interferes in any way with a mother's most basic right to guide the upbringing of the children she gives birth to.
I can't imagine what it's like for parents trying to raise kids in this country today.
I have a hard enough time trying to keep an eye out for my little grandson and warding off the quacks who keep trying to talk my daughter into vaccinating and drugging him whenever I'm out of earshot.
I think this is going on the hop for the best healthcare.
Given the extremely serious adverse reactions to the Gardasil vax which have been reported by many, this bill is outrageous.
A school child is not allowed to take Motrin, but can evaluate the risks and benefits of a vaccine?
Toni Atkins, if you want to "follow science", learn more about this vaccine and about the pharma financial interests which have far too much influence on medicine today.
http://www.nvic.org/Vaccines-and-Diseases/hpv.aspx
http://www.judicialwatch.org/gardasil
http://truthaboutgardasil.org/
Since we're talking so much about "science" & facts & all, I looked up some research. There was a study of 1235 children in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal from 2007 that placed incidence of HPV at 1.5% for ages 12-15 & 3.3% for ages 16-20.
This means that a city with 1000 girls in its middle school system would have 15 who have HPV, which is pretty sobering.
Not sure if this is enough to justify the expense, especially in a state that was mailing out IOU's in lieu of income tax refunds a few years ago. But there are real numbers here. It's not a made-up problem.
yes, but how many have the strain that Gardisil supposedly protects against? and of those, how many are at risk of developing cancer? is that number significantly greater than the number of girls who will be affected by adverse events?
harpy-Can't find the data on that. (You know, other people can look this stuff up too. Just saying.) Your points are well taken, though.
At the same time, as Toni Atkins pointed out, this is per CDC: "Cervarix and Gardasil are recommended for 11 and 12 year-old girls, and for females 13 through 26 years old, who did not get any or all of the three recommended doses when they were younger." Perhaps the feeling is that they might as well get the full course at 12 so it won't be needed later.
Of course, the CDC isn't footing the bill for all this.
I feel it is absurd to take away parental consent away from these young girls. Personally, and for valid reasons, I am against this vaccine as my daughter almost died from it. She had never had any adverse reactions with any previous vaccines. Thank goodness we discovered the source and problems after just 2 of the 3 shots given. I fully believe if the 3rd shot had been adminsitered, and proper treatment not been provided, my daughter would not be here today.
The vaccine may be beneficial to some, maybe even a majority of girls. However, if parental consent is taken away, I feel safe in saying that young girls would agree to recieve the vaccine simply because it is administered by a health professional whom most of us trust because we feel they would not cause any harm. This is why we felt the vaccine was commpletely safe as it was reccomended by our pediatrician. He wouldn\'t have harmed a patient for the world, but the percentage of deaths, illness and permanent side effects was too small to have any warnings issued.
I can definitely buy the \"intrusion into parental rights\" argument but I sincerely hope that that is the real reason driving this group (and I am a practicing socially conservative Catholic). I don\'t see how this vaccine against HPV will encourage young females to be promiscuous--the fear of contracting HIV/AIDS or having an unintended pregnancy should be enough to put the fear of God in young females who are responsible, in my opinion.
HPV is so prevalent these days, that there is a good chance that if a woman was chaste until marriage, she has a high enough chance of contracting HPV to justify getting the vaccination.
Intrusion into parental rights and adverse side effects are valid reasons for opposing this legislation, but I do hope that those are the real reasons behind this group\'s advocacy.
I demand all pediatricians to be vaccinated with hpv and all the other vaccines they push on our kids. They can be carriers of all diseases. After all it is they who see the sick and can pass it on to the healthy. They need to set an example for us all. Ask to see their innoculation records. No excuses. That goes for his nurse too and her poison needle. sick kids cough and sneeze on doctors clothes and well. there you go. Animal tissue and formaldihyde do not mix well with human cells. They MUTATE into possibly something.