Gardasil - A UK tabloid's take
Apr. 17th, 2007 06:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lizziec posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
vaginapaginaThe Daily Mail enter into the debate over Gardasil using a family argument over it to look at the arguments for and against it. The mother wants her daughter to have the vaccine and the father initially didn't even want to discuss it before being eventually (apparently) bullied into agreeing that she should have it. His argument is the common one - he didn't want her to feel she should go out and have sex before she was 16 or 18 (ages quoted in the article).
The bit that annoyed me was "An HPV infection — which only occasionally leads to cervical cancer — is more likely the more sexual partners a woman has. But it seems to fail to acknowledge that it could happen the first time, and that could lead to pre cancerous cells or even cancer.
Anyway, it also gives the information that us UK ladies can have it privately for £400 through a private doctor (which I didn't know before and is possibly the only thing I found informative about the article).
The bit that annoyed me was "An HPV infection — which only occasionally leads to cervical cancer — is more likely the more sexual partners a woman has. But it seems to fail to acknowledge that it could happen the first time, and that could lead to pre cancerous cells or even cancer.
Anyway, it also gives the information that us UK ladies can have it privately for £400 through a private doctor (which I didn't know before and is possibly the only thing I found informative about the article).
