A piece in the Toronto Star today reports that Catholic school boards across Ontario are facing complaints that the province’s HPV vaccine program promotes promiscuity. (We’ve debated the broader implications of Gardasil being offered to grade 8 girls in Ontario on this very blog, but “promoting promiscuity” wasn’t something that came up in those discussions.) Last night, the Halton Catholic District School Board narrowly rejected a motion to ban the program from area schools. Toronto’s Catholic District School Board votes tonight. From the Toronto Star:
The board believes the vaccine will give students a signal of support for premarital sex.
And this from Regis O’Connor, Huron Superior Trustee:
“Giving it means children are going to be promiscuous.”
Um, really? I respect the argument that maybe it’s a little too soon to be doing a province-wide vaccination without further testing, but this “vaccinated girls will become sluts” school of thought infuriates me for so many reasons. Having said that, it doesn’t surprise me. The “vaccine encourages our girls to go wild” bullshit has already been happening south or the border. Above and beyond the fact that I don’t believe in abstinence-only education, this kind of logic doesn’t make sense: regardless of whether or not women and girls have sex outside of the approved (heterosexual) marriage, they’re still at risk when the have sex inside of marriage, no? So the vaccine will protect her if her husband has HPV, no?
Thoughts?
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
three comments
They were "discussing" this on Metro Morning today. I have thoughts, but they are mostly undisciplined and chock-full of annoyance. It's such a nonsensical argument that I am bothered it gets airtime.
And yes, isn't that the point of a vaccine? That it is a long-term solution? Or is that the CDSB's issue? That it's grotesque to plan for the fact that at any point young women will ever have *gasp* sex with anyone.
I can get vaccinated for measles, but that doesn't encourage me to take my newfound immunity for a test drive by getting some sick kid to cough on me...
Do Catholic school boards genuinely believe that the risk of contracting HPV (something that until this debate many people hadn't even /heard of/) is a Critical Barrier keeping teenagers from having sex?
At some point I will have to get all coherent and informed on the controversy and arguments around this. Until then, I will rebut instinctively by sticking my tongue out at the radio.
Posted by catherine
September 19, 2007, 12:41 PM
It seems as if not everyone sees the vaccine as a threat - there were several quotes from board members saying that they didn't see how the vaccine was a threat to their faith. And I guess that's clear from the ultimate decision they made.
What I find really frustrating about this question is that it totally hijacks the issue. There are many reasons to be concerned or unsure about the vaccine (as I have earlier voiced!) - and many of them are far more quantifiable than faith. It bugs me that an element (i.e., faith) which is so subjective and, really, personal, is coming into this debate and taking away from the other questions.
Posted by Thea
September 19, 2007, 12:55 PM
Agreed. There certainly are reasonable concerns with this vaccine, and these sorts of nonsensical (but well-publicized) arguments take away from the legitimacy of the debate.
Posted by catherine
September 19, 2007, 1:21 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.