More on HPV vaccines

[ToadMum]

Having had others through the Uni freshers process I sent DC to get an up to date list of vaccinations from surgery and we then made appointment for meningitis booster. When he got there the nurse had just been on a course about the new one and she told him to rebook in August for it instead. Obviously the surgery hadn't informed receptionists though!

Realise its very new but if they are going to catch everyone before freshers weeks there isn't much time. Many of DCs friends have things arranged after next Thursday making it more complicated.

It is the same combined meningitis vaccine as the one given to pilgrims going to Mecca, so our fallback position for DS1, should our surgery continue to plead complete ignorance, is going to be to go and tell the pharmacist in our local Tesco Extra that he is planning a short trip to somewhere warm, sunny and crowded rather than 4 years in downtown Birmingham.

[Warks mum]

Guest55 - no offence intended, but there's a big difference between promiscuity and complete monogamy, that latter being the thing that gets very little coverage. I'm sure there's no suggestion that the curriculum encourages the former!

[Yamin151]

Yamin151 - you're also making the commonly-held assumption that faithfulness from the beginning to one partner is impossible! It's definitely possible and still happens regularly, especially among those with a strong faith. It's also not a recognised or respected path in the education given to youngsters, which makes is especially difficult for those who choose this route.

The NHS doesn't acknowledge it in its documentation either, which I think is a shame.

Absolutely NOT what I am saying! No no no!

If there are two people, no previous partners, who then remain faithful to each other, which a ISO perfectly possible, I never suggested for a SECOND that it wasn't! Then, you are tight, minimal risk. My point, carefully written, was that even WHEN 2 partners meet and marry and are utterly faithful for the rest of their lives, if either or one of them has had a PREVIOUS relationship or relationships then the new partner, Virgin or not, is inheriting all the se**al history of their partner. NOTHING to do with faithfulness!

[Yamin151]

Yamin151 - you're also making the commonly-held assumption that faithfulness from the beginning to one partner is impossible! It's definitely possible and still happens regularly, especially among those with a strong faith. It's also not a recognised or respected path in the education given to youngsters, which makes is especially difficult for those who choose this route.

The NHS doesn't acknowledge it in its documentation either, which I think is a shame.

Absolutely NOT what I am saying! No no no!

If there are two people, no previous partners, who then remain faithful to each other, which a ISO perfectly possible, I never suggested for a SECOND that it wasn't! Then, you are tight, minimal risk. My point, carefully written, was that even WHEN 2 partners meet and marry and are utterly faithful for the rest of their lives, if either or one of them has had a PREVIOUS relationship or relationships then the new partner, Virgin or not, is inheriting all the se**al history of their partner. NOTHING to do with faithfulness!

And while we are at it, I am a great believe in faithfulness, you don't need to be a member of strong faith to have that belief. And I disagree that it's a path U acknowledged in education, either at school or in the home. Being well informed is not the same as encouraging promiscuity.

[Yamin151]

Yamin151 - you're also making the commonly-held assumption that faithfulness from the beginning to one partner is impossible! It's definitely possible and still happens regularly, especially among those with a strong faith. It's also not a recognised or respected path in the education given to youngsters, which makes is especially difficult for those who choose this route.

The NHS doesn't acknowledge it in its documentation either, which I think is a shame.

Perhaps you also misunderstood my mention of nuns being the only completely abstention group you could find for research. That is because research takes many years to be effective in this field, with long follow up times. That means that you need in this case women, who have remained non active for decades. And I am sure you will agree that the vast majority of women do not stay in that state because they marry and have families, or not marry, whatever, but it doesn't have to be because they are promiscuous or unfaithful, just the life most of us choose, to have a marriage and a family.

[KB]

All my DCs have a strong faith that includes a commitment to no phydical initimacy outside ( before or during) marriage but I wouldn't make health decisions on that basis. Even if they maintain their lifelong faith things can still happen whether by others forcing them or under the deliberate or otherwise influence of drugs or alcohol. It's not that I don't trust my DCs but we are all fallible and I'd rather have some of the potential physical consequences covered.

I do feel for teachers having to deliver PHSE in this area - its a minefield. My impression is that they emphasis that no one should feel pressured into physical intimacy before they are ready and I would hope they include in this that it's perfectly normal to wait for marriage if this is what the individuals choose. Realistically this is not the majority stance so its also important that they address other choices if the students are going to take any of it seriously.

My DD used to be embarrassed by the questions relating to this area when visiting health professionals but understood it is part of their job. Most accepted her explanations. I can see that they are in a difficult position because if one partner is misleading the other the medical decision could be undermined.

Moral of all this - avoid being a teacher, a GP or a parent

[Yamin151]

All my DCs have a strong faith that includes a commitment to no phydical initimacy outside ( before or during) marriage but I wouldn't make health decisions on that basis. Even if they maintain their lifelong faith things can still happen whether by others forcing them or under the deliberate or otherwise influence of drugs or alcohol. It's not that I don't trust my DCs but we are all fallible and I'd rather have some of the potential physical consequences covered.

Well put KB, although I am bristling a little at the faith attatched to your belief in no physical intimacy outside marriage "either before or during", I am hoping you don't by implication mean that those of us without faith are in anyway condoning physical intimacy with another person whilst within a marriage? Again, no right minded person thinks polygamy is ok, you don't need faith to believe that! Perhaps I misunderstood you.

[southbucks3]

I know I'm not alone in this, I simply send them in and offer sympathy after school, it's easy.
Boy number two had a reaction to a jab as a baby, his arm swelled up like a tennis ball bless him, so we didn't do the second part after asking the docs opinion, boy number one passed out after his jabs in year 9 not through fear but his bodies reaction, he lived and got an extra biscuit and a few hours in matrons office. I still simply send them along, the more people who avoid jabs the more at risk people are, who for various reasons cannot have the jabs, from contracting the nasties from those who simply refused their jabs and fall prey to whatever grotty disease they could have been protected from had they not been so knowledgeable about potential side effects.
As for hpv jab really...its a no brainer just let them do it. Whatever your religion or conviction (life long monogamy isn't religious ) your children may have completely different ideas, why shouldn't they, we encourage independent thinking in every other element of their life.

[Guest55]

Guest55 - no offence intended, but there's a big difference between promiscuity and complete monogamy, that latter being the thing that gets very little coverage. I'm sure there's no suggestion that the curriculum encourages the former!

Well I disagree - faithfulness is something PSHE courses encourage for all sorts of health reasons - physical and mental.

[KB]

All my DCs have a strong faith that includes a commitment to no phydical initimacy outside ( before or during) marriage but I wouldn't make health decisions on that basis. Even if they maintain their lifelong faith things can still happen whether by others forcing them or under the deliberate or otherwise influence of drugs or alcohol. It's not that I don't trust my DCs but we are all fallible and I'd rather have some of the potential physical consequences covered.

Well put KB, although I am bristling a little at the faith attatched to your belief in no physical intimacy outside marriage "either before or during", I am hoping you don't by implication mean that those of us without faith are in anyway condoning physical intimacy with another person whilst within a marriage? Again, no right minded person thinks polygamy is ok, you don't need faith to believe that! Perhaps I misunderstood you.

Apology if I upset anyone. I was simply stating our stance with reference to the medical issues being discussed. While faith drives belief and behaviour there is no reason why those of different or no faith wouldn't have the same values and/or behave in the same way.

There do seem to be people who think extra marital affairs are OK though - as seen by the recent press coverage of the web site that was hacked. While I don't agree with them I don't know if they can be described as 'not being in their right minds'?

Southbucks - I didn't get your point about 'lifelong monogamy isn't religious' but I can guarantee that my DCs faith was not imposed on them and they have been free from our influence in making their choice.