Ian Frazer, the discoverer, is doing a bit of a whirlwind tour today for the cameras – vaccinating some girls and young women in both Brisbane and Sydney on the first day that Gardasil is approved for use in Australia.
As yet there’s no government subsidy for the vaccine (which protects against the virus that causes the main form of cervical cancer), so the full course of three shots costs over A$400. There’s nonetheless no shortage of takers, and a growing number of men interested in the vaccination as well so they can be confident of not infecting their partners.
My tigling is not quite 12, so I’m hoping that in the next few years the government will subsidise the shots to make them more affordable. I’m fortunate that I can afford to have her vaccinated even without the subsidy (and my son too), but surely on a purely pragmatic long term view a subsidised vaccine makes economic sense – it must cost much more than that to treat cases of cervical cancer through Medicare.
There’s still some concern in some socially conservative circles that inoculating their daughters against a cancer that happens to be sexually transmitted is going to send “the wrong message” about premarital sex to teens. It’s less of an issue here in Australia compared to the States (or Scotland), but here’s a surprisingly good Fox News article about how parents might talk with their daughters about the vaccine.
In more good cancer vaccine news, an FDA approval application has been made for a therapeutic cancer vaccine (Gardasil is preventative only) to combat cases of prostate cancer in men, and a vaccine against lung cancer is moving on to large scale trials. Both these vaccines are likely to have their best effect in post-tumour-removal patients, hoping to stave off relapses by destroying any cancer cells remaining after surgery and chemo/radiotherapy.
(crossposted at Hoyden About Town)
I don’t understand what the big deal is about “talking to your child about HPV”.
Just tell them its a vaccine against cancer and they’re having it. How hard is that?
You don’t need to have the sex talk with them to convince them to do it, I’m sure saying “you won’t get cancer” is enough of a justification for most kids.
Well I don’t really see how having an injection is as necessary of explanation as a pap smear.
Much less invasive for a start, and assuming kids are already having vaccinations against stuff like Tetanus, Rubella etc, one more needle with different stuff inside is hardly even worthy of mention.
Or is the trend nowadays for parents to tell kids the history and political ramifications of everything they do? When I was at school they just sent us into the nurses office and jabbed needles in us, and we had no idea what was going on. They could have been injecting us with the ebola virus for all I knew.
Hell no, let them die of cancer. It’s much more important for them not to think they can have sex than it is for them not to get cancer.
Whether one has “the talk” or not depends on the age of the child – a 10 year old just gets told it’s “a shot” or if curious “a shot against a special cancer”. One might wish to have a slightly more involved talk with a 15 year old, or even a 13 year old (remembering some of the teens in my country town).
The recommended ages for the vaccine are between 11 and 26, so there’s going to be a lot of women in their late teens and early 20s getting it as it becomes available, and probably quite a few of those vaccinations are going to be paid for by parents, so I guess they might as well talk about it.
The vaccine has proven efficacy against HPV and anal cancer in gay men.
Thus, achieving subsidised mass access is a no-brainer: get a bunch of poofs out waving placards, demanding PBS access to the vaccine and every young woman in Australia will have PBS entitlement within 12 months.
Identifying – and excluding – a sub-meritorious population is a guarantee of accessibility for everyone else
From the link in this post it looks like it will be added to the PBS after a 6 month trial period anyway. The religious right in Australia probably hasn’t even heard of it.
Yep. It will be considered for listing by the November meeting of PBAC (Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee) and will be a certainty for positive recommendation.
In the interests of safety let me point out yet again, that no woman who has had an HPV injection should give up regular pap smears. It is an anti-HPV injection, NOT an anti-cervical cancer injection. It does NOT prevent all forms of cervical cancer and the best protection will remain regular screening.
Regular check ups for you anal types as well.
I just hope it gets the PBS green light and is available at low cost before I turn 27 next year. I assume that it would only be allowed for women within the recommended 9-26 age range. Does anyone know how long it will be if/when it’s approved in November?
Although a social conservative myself, I don’t buy into the argument that the HPV vaccine should be withheld for the reasons outlined in the post above. If that logic were followed, Hep B vaccinations would need to be removed from the usual schedule as well – as it stands, the world still turns despite many young people getting this vaccination each year.
I agree with the FOX News article – I’m sure most parents will have the common sense to share whatever information is appropriate at their childrens’ stage in development. For parents with younger children though, it would undoubtedly be easier for them if the vaccination WAS compulsory AND bundled with other common childhood vaccines (like Hep B), as it would surely be easier to handle, as Tigtog pointed out above.
As a UQ student, three cheers for Ian Frazer and his team on a remarkable achievement.
Good point re the continuing need for Pap smears even after HPV vaccination, saint.
It has to be especially good news though for young women who know they’re at high risk for cervical Ca because of their family history – the vaccine is likely to cut down the risks for most of them considerably.
I heard a mother who’d had a hysterectomy due to cervical Ca on the radio today who couldn’t wait to get her 14yo daughter vaccinated fast enough for that reason above all. She had booked her daughter in for a shot today.
“Good point re the continuing need for Pap smears even after HPV vaccination, saint.”
Whether it’s worthwhile having any screening procedure as routine is a matter of cost/benefit analysis (most of us don’t eg have chest xrays for TB any more). If this vaccine means the risk of cervical cancer becomes only 30% of its current risk then it oughtta eventually change who gets pap smears and how often (with some savings to the health budget, BTW).
But I’m being picky – until the numbers are properly crunched by the experts, vaccinated women should continue to get tested.
Yep, dd: eventually the risk ratio will change to the point that pap smears will no longer be the most effective method of screening for cervical cancer. That point is likely to be several decades away yet (depending on one’s age), but essentially we’re in violent agreement.
Hi. I’m a Canadian backpacker who will be in Australia for about 8 months. Can anyone tell me where the vaccines are administered? Hopsitals? walk-in clinics? Sexual Health Clinics? I want to get it as soon as possible.
Thanks alot
AC
I think Abbott was only annoyed with the media because it gave the pharma company a nice bargaining position.
yeah wbb – there has a been a bit of an over reaction to the tactic. The problem was it is all part of the tactical war that australia (almost alone) has to wage with big pharma to get prices down.
From memory the price now is about $400 a course of 3 jabs and Abbott and Howard were trying to stare down the pharmas and get it to about $200 for 3. It will be sad if because of a bit of knee jerk response by activists to Abbott we end up paying twice as much as we need to to big pharma.
ashley – you’ll need to go to a GP clinic and pay for a consult – then you will get a script which you, being a non oz, will have to pay full dollar for possibly $400. BUT. Its really not just one jab its a course of 3 from memory. You might want to wait till you get back and get advice from your own doctors.
Anyway I don’t see how a canadian backpacker would be in any danger of herpes from just backpacking. Unless…
Announcement just now by Govt – ITS MADE IT onto the PBS from 2007!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh hooray!
Its good news but the timetable always was April 2007 from my memory.
All Abbott, bless his slightly stained little soul, was doing was tring to get the Big Pharma down in price. As it is, even with the handicap of the publicity push, they have got it down from $600m to $400m for the first burst.
So good work Tony.
Who knows – they might have saved another $100m if the Big Pharma scare campaign hadn’t taken hold.
National vaccine program for all teens girls next year.
I’m quite sure Howard would have felt quite strongly about this, as Janet had cervical cancer herself.
Hep B can be trasmitted in a variety of ways, not just through sexual contact. So I don’t think your argument is logical.
As for tigtog:
You don’t think it’s a good idea to talk to a ten year old about stuff like this? You don’t think they’re hearing all about stuff like this on the internet, from their peers, from magazines, etc anyway? You don’t think if you – their parent – talks to them about it, they’ll be more likely to trust you and want to talk to you about it when they’re an early teen and becoming sexually active?? Goodness me. Fifteen would be far too late to talk to a lot of kids about stuff like that – and I would have objected strenuously as a ten year old if I’d been told something was just “a shot”. Or even “a shot against a special cancer”.
I’ve had plenty of discussions with my children about sexuality, Rebekka. I’m the girl who grew up in a house full of demonstration contraceptive devices because my Dad did the Family Planning Association presentations at schools. I don’t have a problem with discussing sex with them at all. But not every parent is like me, and not every child is supercurious at age 10 either.
If my kids ask questions, I answer them. If they’re not curious, I tell them the bare bones just so they are informed. If I tell them more than that when they’re not curious, they just tune out, so what’s the point?
Did you require detailed symptomatic breakdowns of lockjaw before you deigned to receive a tetanus booster during your childhood? I certainly didn’t. All I needed to know was that it was a shot against tetanus which was nasty.
I don’t see why a child needs a detailed explanation of how HPV is sexually transmitted just to tell them they’re getting a shot against HPV which can cause cancer. If the parent doesn’t want to tell them about the sexual nature of HPV transmission in cervical cancer, unwise as that may seem to you or me, then I think that parent should be reassured that it isn’t compulsory to bring sex into the discussion when they vaccinate their daughter against cancer.
I don’t have a daughter in the age group so it’s mere speculation – but I wonder if I might eventually prefer not to link the vaccine with sex at that stage. I can’t see the benefit – and wonder if it’s a good thing that the first up and close personal experience a young child has with “sex”, is a jab to prevent something Very Nasty.
We don’t go into a great speil to kids about meningitis, tetanus or even flu when we give them a jab. Nor do we go into the ins and outs of brain and spinal damage when we make them put on seat belts.
I can’t see why HPV/cancer/warts should be much different.
tigtog is about right. tell them what they want to know – not much more or less. That is respectful of kids. It’s harder to do than just disgorging all the information an adult might have accumulated, which while easing the adult’s anxiety is likely to either raise the child’s anxiety or overwhelm them or at best just go over their head.
I remember Rubella vaccination day very clearly – I’d have been twelve or thirteen at the very most. We girls were told it was to stop us from having “deformed” and “retarded” babies and shown pictures of such children. (this was a country towm Catholic primary school, early 1980s.)
I remember thinking that I didn’t need it as I would never ever get pregnant or have anything to do with boy germs.
But I got it anyway.
Some one less sensitive than I might have said:
So they showed you a group picture of the nuns or your class photo then?
class photo, indeed. The cheek of it.
Sister Angela was a fearsome woman; you better hope she’s not reading your comment.
Boys germs or the needle?
My poor kids have to endure a mum who would rather give it to ‘em straight than leave them to hear about life, sex and drugs etc from the playground.
They even grew up with a pop-up facts of life book in full anatomical splendor, though the cardboard pop up penis is a little flaccid these days.
I kid you not.
Well, I lied tonight as it happens to our kid.
“Why don’t the policemen have shields?”
They don’t need them.
“But what if a robber shoots them?”
There are no guns in Australia. You aren’t allowed to have a gun.
“But what do the police have?”
They have guns. They are the only ones allowed to have guns.
The 3yo pipes up at this point: “The policeman will shoot the robber dead.”
No, the police are nice – they keep us all safe. They don’t shoot anybody.
“If they had shields they would need to be about this thick”, the 6yo resumes, indicating a bullet stopping width of about 2 inches.
Which might be enough – depending on the material. And the calibre of the robber’s weapon. But I’m no expert.
If the vast majority of kids aren’t super-curious about sex, how babies are made, the whole kit and kaboodle, by the age of 10, I’ll eat my best hat. Feathers and all. If they’re not asking questions, it’s because they’ve picked up from their parents that it’s a subject NOT TO BE DISCUSSED.
Good for you. I wasn’t suggesting kids needed minutae about how the vaccine works on a molecular level, I was suggesting they deserve an honest explanation of why they are getting the vaccine and the disease it’s supposed to prevent. I understand your point about not keeping on explaining if the kid clearly isn’t interested, but I also think you’re insulting the intelligence of a ten year old if all you tell them is that they’re getting a shot.
Yes, actually I did require detailed explanations of why I was getting shots and the diseases they prevented. I knew all about the symptoms of tetanus, and the fact that the bug that causes it can live in the ground for over a hundred years, and that cutting yourself on something dirty is when it’s most likely to happen, and that it “locks your jaw” so you can’t eat, and that’s why it used to be called lockjaw. Similarly, I had other diseases explained to me. My parents were always kind enough to take me to my own GP for my shots, so I never had to line up for them at school, for which I am profoundly grateful, and they involved me in my own medical decisions as well – when I was 11 and was supposed to get a rubella shot, but had already actually had rubella, they let me chose whether I’d rather have a blood test to check whether I was actually immune to rubella, or whether I’d rather just have the shot. I chose the blood test, and turns out, you get much better immunity from actually having had the disease than you do from getting a shot (which is probably an argument for immunising girls at 11 or so, rather than at 18 months as happens now). Anyway, my point being that I always felt better armed with information, even at a young age, and feel that the way my parents handled medical issues left me with a sense of my own autonomy.
Which I think is important.
Rebekka, I think you and I are in violent agreement about what is the optimum way to explain stuff to kids.
However, I’m not quite sure how you get from a remark about all kids not necessarily being super-curious about vaccinations to a presumption that I meant that such kids will also not be curious about sex. I don’t think that’s an accurate reading of what I wrote at all.
Nor do I think that any parent deciding to delay discussion of the specifics of sexual transmission of HPV is necessarily refusing to discuss other more general aspects of sexuality and reproduction with their children. Why do you assume that the two must be bundled inextricably?
I’m not suggesting that I personally would refuse to tell them anymore. I’m saying that’s all that’s necessary to start with. If/when they ask questions, each parent decides what they’re comfortable imparting . (I’m presuming here that most ten year olds would have already had questions about the vaccination procedure in general asked and answered about five years earlier when getting all the booster shots required for entering school).
Also, remember that the thread was discussing the various people who are made extremely uncomfortable at the thought of their young daughters discussing sex at all. These are people who believe that all premarital and extramarital sex is wrong, and that merely mentioning sex to their daughters without an admonishment to abstinence is tantamount to encouraging rampant sexual experimentation.
Firstly, I am not one of these discomfited parents.
Secondly, I am rejecting their argument that giving their daughters this vaccine means that they must discuss the sexual significance of the organism being vaccinated against, hence opening the gate to sexual temptation earlier than they are willing.
I don’t think your arguments for the merits of gifting one’s daughter with a sense of personal autonomy would be deemed persuasive or even relevant to people who promote abstinence-only sex education and female submission to male headship. However, mine might.