- The Washington Times - Sunday, July 16, 2006

As expected, the advisory committee to the Centers for Disease Control recommended that adolescent girls and young women receive a new vaccine with the trade name Gardasil, which targets human papillomavirus (HPV). HPV is a sexually transmitted infection that is shown to be responsible for virtually all cases of cervical cancer, which kills 10 American women a day. The Food and Drug Administration has already found the vaccine to be both safe and effective.

The development of a vaccine for HPV is a tremendous medical achievement and a boon to public health. It holds the potential to protect the health of millions of people and to preserve the lives of thousands of American women each year. After extensive study, we and other pro-family groups have concluded that the clear benefits of developing an HPV vaccine outweigh any potential costs. The groups welcoming the vaccine include leading conservative pro-family organizations, like the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America and the Medical Institute for Sexual Health.

There are, however, two important concerns that must be emphasized. The first is the accurate communication to the public of what the vaccine does — and does not — prevent. Gardasil is being touted by its manufacturer, Merck, as the world’s first vaccine to prevent cancer. And approval of the vaccine has been greeted by breathless headlines declaring that the vaccine was found to be “100 percent effective.”

Actually, the vaccine only targets four out of the dozens of strains of HPV. Gardasil targets two strains which are responsible for 70 percent of cervical cancer cases and another two responsible for most cases of genital warts (the most unpleasant external symptom of HPV infection).

But 70 percent is not the same as eradication. The public must understand the undisputed scientific facts regarding the vaccine. Most importantly, it is only “100 percent effective” against the strains of HPV it targets — leaving 30 percent of cervical cancer cases untouched. This means that even if every person in the country were vaccinated, women would still need to get their yearly Pap tests. And, tragically, some women will die even when all current precautionary measures are taken against cervical cancer. Claims that “the new vaccine, when used appropriately, will virtually eliminate cervical cancer” are simply false.

Our second concern is the argument we hear from some groups that the vaccine should be made mandatory. Pro-family groups are united in believing that parents should decide what is best for their children. We oppose any effort by states to make Gardasil mandatory (for example, making it a requirement for school attendance). If use of the vaccine becomes part of the recommended standard of care, and if the federal Vaccines for Children program pays for vaccination of those children whose families cannot afford it, then vaccination should become widespread without school mandates.

Mandating vaccination may be justified when the disease in question is easily transmitted through casual contact (sometimes in the classroom itself). But in this case, the strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer are transmitted only through sexual contact. The paternalistic view — that just because something is good for you the government should force you to do it — is not one that most American families would welcome, especially when transmission of the virus can be prevented through behavioral change alone.

The scientific advance that the HPV vaccine represents should not distract us from the primary truth that abstinence until marriage and fidelity within marriage constitute the single best formula for sexual health. Behavioral self-restraint and vaccination are not mutually exclusive, since even someone who practices abstinence and fidelity could be exposed to HPV through sexual assault or marriage to an infected partner. But, as with other public health issues, like smoking, we should not limit ourselves to risk-reduction strategies when risk elimination is the ultimate goal.

Peter Sprigg is vice president for policy at the Family Research Council.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide