Yesterday, September 27, was my mother's 52nd birthday.
She died of cervical cancer in November 1992.
So last year, when news broke that Merck produced a potentially life-saving vaccination, Gardasil, against the human papillomavirus (HPV), a leading cause of cervical cancer, I cannot describe the joy I felt at the thought of future families not having to bury 37-year old mothers of four like mine did.
Meghan O'Rourke, writing at Salon today, picks it up there.
So when Merck announced that it had a created a drug that could prevent some 70 percent of cervical cancers from developing, you would think Americans would rejoice. Instead, there was a backlash. Last February, Republican Gov. Rick Perry signed an executive order that would have made Texas the first state to mandate the vaccination of schoolgirls against HPV, the sexually transmitted virus that is a frequent cause of cervical cancer. He promptly came under fierce attack. The Texas Legislature expressed its deep reservations about the vaccine, and the media reported that Perry had received a campaign contribution from Merck prior to signing the order. Ultimately, the order was vetoed by the legislature. Earlier this year, 24 states were contemplating making Gardasil--as the cervical-cancer vaccine is known--a mandatory vaccination for young women. Today, only one state, Virginia, has such a law, and it leaves a loophole for parents to opt out.
In one sense, this reluctance seems understandable. Merck is the same company that made headlines in 2004 for failing to disclose that its painkiller Vioxx raised the risk of cardiac arrest and stroke in patients. Gardasil is a brand-new drug, and the company has conducted only limited testing on it. Though the pre-release studies suggest it is highly efficacious, the vaccine's long-term side effects are not fully known. What's more, the vaccination comprises three painful shots, at an estimated cost of $360. Given all this, it is hard to blame parents who resist putting their daughters on the drug's front line, preferring to wait until more is known about it.
That is a totally understandable, precautionary skepticism that any responsible parent would display. Just as O'Rourke points out, it is the other argument pushed forward by opponents that is problematic.
Much less understandable, though, is the position taken by many opponents: namely, that a cervical-cancer vaccination would "promote promiscuity" among teenage girls. Implicit in this argument is the assumption that good girls don't get cervical cancer; only "loose" ones do--and they may get what they deserve. Earlier this year, State Sen. George Runner of California told the Los Angeles Times that American money would be much better spent on other types of vaccines, since cervical cancer is a result of lifestyle choices, rather than bad genetic luck.
O'Rourke notes the rank ignorance of proponents of this absurd argument. With this logic, cancer research -- namely, much needed governmental funds -- should be chauffeured away from deadly illnesses such as AIDS/HIV and lung cancer caused by emphysema.
Also, State Senator George Runner (R-Los Angeles) doesn't seem to realize that HPV can be caused as easily as casual skin-to-skin contact or environmentally, notes Wikipedia. Ever take a shower in a college dorm with a community bathroom? It is that easy.
In fact, most Americans don't even know they have it, and can unknowingly pass it along to others. O'Rourke notes the troublesome data:
The CDC reports that at least 50 percent of Americans are infected with HPV over the course of their lives, and a whopping 80 percent of American women are infected by age 50. Admittedly, the chances are slim that HPV would lead to cervical cancer: Only a small portion of HPV infections become cancerous. Still, according to the National Cancer Institute, roughly 11,000 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer this year in the United States. Nearly 3,700 women will die. If you are one of those 3,700 women, you might feel that a vaccine could have changed everything. And--contrary to Runner's insinuations--you needn't be a slut to be among them: You could have married a guy who slept with just one other girl. Or, of course, you could be one of the approximately 13 percent of American women who, according to a 2003 study, are or will be a victim of rape over the course of their lives.
Sluts, all of them, according to George "the Cruel."
Disgraceful.
[This post is not endorsing a mandate for Gardasil, but I do hold out hope for its potential in sparing families the pain that mine went through. The medical evidence is not all in, and skepticism is healthy, especially given Merck's history. But the rhetoric of those like Runner has no place in this debate. At all.]
Cross-posted at MattOrtega.com
Posted September 28, 2007 | 03:06 AM (EST)