HPV vaccine and controversy

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
HPV Vaccine and Controversy
Cervical cancer is the leading cause of death in women in the United States. The HPV virus strikes 12,000 and kills 4,000 U.S. women every year. Sources indicate that by the age of 15 more than 10% of American girls are infected with the virus. By the age of 17, the percent is usually double that in the preceding years. This increases until the age of 25 when the women settle and start to care about their health. According to Ringer, HPV is the most sexually transmitted disease in the United States (2). Currently, more than 20 million women are suffering from the infection. Many of them do not trust the vaccine and once infected they just wait for the disease to ease as has been the tradition. Reports indicate that not many women have are informed concerning the HPV vaccine and those who are either ignore to make a move or are too naïve to disclose their pain in the case of the adolescents. It appears that the HPV vaccination has proved to be a challenge among women and especially the young girls at the age of 15 to 25 years. These form the most sexually active group but more so people who have not singled out partners. However, the ailment has not been confined to the age bracket as girls as young as 11 or 12 years are also getting sexually active nowadays. This makes the situation even more demanding. According to Ratanasiripong, the higher percentage of the HPV cases is on the adolescents (1). The situation calls for strategized campaigns on the young people and stabilization of the vaccine so that it can be made mandatory like any other inoculation.

Cervical cancer occurs in the walls of the cervix at the part that opens to the vagina. The primary cause of the disease is the HPV. There are different types of HPV like the ones that cause cancer and genital warts. In most cases, HPV is transmitted through sexual intercourse. However, it is reported that the human body is able to fight the virus although it can last longer in some women to cause cancer. In the long run, a minor infection develops first into a pre-cancer cell that does not have symptoms. If not treated this is what further develops into cancerous cells although only a few of the infections get to this stage. It is reported that any woman can get HPV but those with aids, smokers and other STIs causing gashes in the cervix are at a higher risk of contracting the virus.
There has not been any proven treatment for HPV. However, upon a Pap test, there are treatments for the cell changes that result from the infection. Apparently, there is no test for HPV but the cell changes and indications of cervix cancer. However, many physicians recommend that women under the age of 30 only go for cervical cancer tests after the Pap test indicates chances of cancer. Otherwise, they assert that doing tests could cause too many worries and at times affect the personal sexuality. There has however been too much research on the HPV vaccines in a bid to prevent the virus from affecting and killing more women. The first HPV vaccine against was introduced in 2006. These were the Cervarix and the Gardasil vaccines. They were aimed at preventing the HPV 16 and 18 which causes about 70% of cervical cancer. However, since their approval, there has been mixed reactions from the public ranging from hostility to enthusiastic support. Many women have paid less attention as the two were introduced as prevention against STI like genital warts caused by HPV 11 and 6. In countries like Canada, where the vaccine was introduced to pre-teens aged between 11-13 years, it attracted too much criticism as there was no dire consultation from the parents and sexual activity at this age is minimal. Many women rolled out of the vaccination after doubts of its efficiency. In the US, the effectiveness of the inoculation lay in the pre-coitarachal immunization. This is a dosage administered to the naïve recipients before their first sexual encounter. However, parents regard it as an insult to their ability to guide their children as well as a violation of their fundamental rights. The introduction of the Gardasil as a mandatory injection was overly objected where the public cited the manufacturers aggressive marketing strategies as linked with the commercial profit. Further, it was considered as a leeway to having the adolescents to engage more in sexual activities and explore further about their sexuality, a realization that was not recommended for their tender ages.
The controversy on the HPV vaccination rests more on marketing than its efficiency. Parents and the public are adamant to accept that girls as young as 11 years old are sexually active and will be better off if informed about their sexuality and the need to keep safe than not. The current situation calls for a fast action if we were to protect more women and especially young girls from contracting cervical cancer. There is a good reason for the push to get pre-teen girls vaccinated before their first sexual encounter. In most cases, these girls either know little about the diseases that emanate from unprotected sex apart from the likes of AIDs and normal sexually transmitted diseases like gonorrhea. Further, there is limited access to protection such as male or female condoms as these teenagers want to conduct sex against their parents. As a result, they cannot afford to use the protection partly due to naivety and partly as they do not want to get public.
According to Mishra and Graham, the acceptability of the vaccine does not depend on the teens and preteen’s decisions but upon the informed adults and their parents (5). The contradiction between the manufacturer and the consumer is an issue of communication and education. Previous research on the introduction of other medication like for uterine cancer indicated that the discourse is promoted by the sociotechnical practices within the different societies. There has not been a linear engagement with the vaccination projects. This is what has caused the wide uproar. As a result, the major issue lies in the individual responsibility as well as the thoroughness of the process during marketing and public education. It is ironical that women are very alert in the pre-natal testing, breast screening and bone and ovarian screening before and after they conceive. However, few are interested in the cervical screening, and this only happens when they are probably sick. The same ignorance is what causes many to object the vaccination for them and their children.
According to Polzer, Rudman, and Mancuso women are either for the vaccination, against it or undecided (3). However, the higher percentage falls in the category of the undecided. Three primary factors promote this situation. The first is a lack of information about their sexuality and need for health. In most cases, women are not vigilant to know their cervical cancer situations and other related sicknesses. This is brought about by the trust they accord their partners and in most cases ignorance. The second is positioning. This aspect goes hand in hand with discourse in HPV vaccinations. There has not been a profound campaign against cervical cancer and the vaccine has not yet been publicized. From the fear of the adversities that could come with the vaccine and lack of sufficient proof from people who had received it, women feel uncomfortable to be the lead. Their worries are underpinned on the discourse of the HVP vaccination and inconsistent research which affects how actively they are willing to get involved in the process.
The two authors recommend that the education about cervical cancer be introduced in schools from as early as the 6th grade so that the young girls are educated about the deadly disease just like they do for HIV/Aids.
For the HPV vaccine to be efficient and admitted by everyone, then the campaigns must not be done by the manufacturing company but by the government through the health department. Allowing the company to market their product will be a violation of people’s right to fair prices and quality services. According to the American Medicare policy on prescription drugs, negotiation for the cost of the drugs is illegal. Nurses and other paramedics should thus stage a statewide campaign on three grounds. The first is to educate the public regarding HPV even before introducing the vaccine (Grimes 3-6). This campaign ought to be divided into age groups. The approach used to teach adults about the virus cannot be used to educate the teenagers and preteens. This is because they are naïve and do not know too much biology about themselves. The marketers and trainers must thus use teen and youth friendly language so that the message is conveyed directly can clearly. Once the HPV is understood, the next level of education should be to sensitize them on cervix cancer. This would make them understand better and be willing to undergo tests. Once the ground is set, then the health sector should introduce the vaccination. The adoption must start with the mature people among them the parents. Once they are informed and have proven the vaccine to be effective, it would be easier to allow their children to be vaccinated. The other crucial aspect is to campaign against the needle anxiety among the youths and preteens. Most of them, after the initial introduction, had a preconceived mentality that the needle pains a lot. This should start by conducting research on post-immunization reactions so as to design effective methods of handling the young.
The controversy over HPV is a struggle between the efficiency of the vaccine and the parental influence. The large challenge rests on the parents’ adamancy to embrace the vaccine and allow their girls to be immunized. However, there have not been adversities from the previous vaccinations. This proofs that the dose is sufficient. The only problem is marketing and making policies that are acceptable. To make it acceptable, the government must embark on health sector is driven campaigns and statewide education programs to sensitize and make clear allegations related to the vaccine.

Works Cited
Grimes, David. “We Know It’s Effective. So Why Is There Opposition To The HPV Vaccine ?”. the Guardian. N.p., 2016. Web. 9 Dec. 2016.
Mishra, Amrita and Janice E. Graham. “Risk, Choice And The ‘Girl Vaccine’: Unpacking Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Immunisation.” Health, Risk & Society 14.1 (2012): 57-69. Web.
Polzer, Jessica, Debbie Laliberte Rudman, and Francesca V. Mancuso. “Risk, Responsibility, Resistance: Young Women’S Negotiations Of Identity And Healthy Citizenship In Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination Narratives.” Benjamins.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 9 Dec. 2016.
Ratanasiripong, Nop T. “A Review Of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Infection And HPV Vaccine–Related Attitudes And Sexual Behaviors Among College-Aged Women In The United States.” Journal of American College Health 60.6 (2012): 461-470. Web.
Ringer, Lepre Carolyn. “This Shot Can Save Your Life!” (Or Can It?): Framing Of The HPV Vaccine In Teen, Parenting, And Women’s Magazines”. Connection.ebscohost.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 9 Dec. 2016.