HPV & sexual promiscuity?

I am on a mailing list for Catholic doctors and recently they've been having a discussion on the new HPV vaccination that has come out. I know that this has been mentioned on some blogs, so I thought I'd post about it.

Basically, there is a new vaccine avaliable against a virus called the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV).

This virus is responsible for causing a lot of cancers; 70% of all cervical cancer are because of this virus, as well as cancer in the vulva, vagina, penis and some cancers of the oropharynx (upper mouth/throat area).

So the idea is to vaccinate people to stop people getting these cancers.

However, there has been some anger amongst some groups because of one key thing....the HPV virus is almost totally transmitted through sexual contact.

Some people therefore are worried that if we vaccinate teenagers against it, it will actually cause an increase in sexual promiscuiy, or that by vaccinating our daughters we are saying "we are expecting you to have sex before marriage, and so we want to make sure you are 'safe' "

These are valid reactions and fears; no good Catholic wants to be in support of something that seems to suggest they're in favour of pre-marital sex or anything.

So I have been thinking about this over recent weeks, and the discussion on the Catholic doctor's mailing list has helped solidify my opinion.

I think it can be best summed up by a statement recently released by the Catholic Medical Association in America:

The Catholic Medical Association encourages the use of this safe, effective, and ethically acceptable vaccine...Healing and preventing diseases, no matter what their source, are acts of mercy and a moral good

and I, along with all the Paediatricians and Gynaecologists that have written in on the mailing list, agree.

In my mind, preventing the absolute horrible nightmare of having cancer is a merciful and good thing, no matter what behaviour has led people to having that cancer.

If every woman in American society were vaccinated with this, there would be 70% less cases of cervical cancer, which I can only see as being a good thing.

Clearly, it is better if sexual behaviour was changed so that there was no sexual promiscuity (then the rates of cervical cancer would go down too!), but I think it'd be unethical in today's society to deny people access to this vaccination just because it may be seen as stamping one's "seal of approval" on pre-martial sex.

Also, a few additional points...

1. There is no evidence to suggest that this vaccine would increase sexual promiscuity; promiscuity is currently rampant in society anyway, and this vaccination doesn't take away the 'fear' of pregnancy, or of getting any other of the dozen sexually transmitted diseases avaliable out there. Also, it only prevents cancers caused by SOME types of HPV; not all HPV strains.


2. I don't believe that this vaccination is a more powerful influencing factor that the moral norms established in the home by parents. If I had been vaccinated aged 14, it wouldn't have had any effect on my resolve to remain chaste till marriage, because other things (God, my family environment) were much more powerful motivating factors.


3. Not all virgins marry virgins.
Sixty % of the sexually active American population is infected with the HPV. All it takes is one infected person, to marry a non-infected virgin.....and the virgin who saved sex for marriage, will now be infected herself, and at a high risk of developing cervical cancer.


4. One can never ever say 'only' and 'always' in medicine.

The HPV virus is predominantly spread by sexual contact....but not only spread by it.

One study found that people infected with HPV have it under their finger-nails, and so potentially spread it to other people through hand-shaking.
In this study, of the 14 women who were tested for HPV on their fingertips and under their nails, 3 of them had it on their fingers, and of the 14 men, 8 of them had it on their fingers.

Now think of shaking hands with people, public transport, touching public doors, touching things in shops...
how many people wash their hands BEFORE they go the bathroom? Basically noone; so if you have it on your hands, and then wipe in the bathroom, it is theoretically possible to transmit it, via your hands, from someone else to yourself.

This is the study for interest: Sexually Transmitted Infections 1999 Oct;75(5):317-9:
Detection of human papillomavirus DNA on the fingers of patients with genital warts.
Sonnex C, Strauss S, Gray JJ,

There is no actual way of quantifying this kind of a risk, because it's still there.

I don't even want to think about public swimming pools, public showers...etc etc.


So anyway, in summary, I would say that if we want to change the rates of these cancer, the majority of effort and energy should be spent trying to change society's horrendously wild sexual behaviour, BUT at the same time, there is now a vaccine avaliable which will reduce a HUGE proportion of these cancers occuring, and, from a medical point of view, I support its use.

The vaccination won't have a more powerful effect than peer pressure, or than the example set by parents, and as this virus causes cancer, and could also be spread by non-sexual routes, I think it is wise not to dismiss it without giving some serious thought.

I consider myself very low risk for getting the HPV; I never had sex before marriage, and neither did my husband, and we don't have any intention of have any adulterous relationships with anyone else now in marriage!

BUT, because, like all cancers, cervical cancer is a horrible horrible diesease which kills, and the vaccination avaliable is safe and effective, if offered I would probably be vaccinated.


-