Morals and HPV

DISTURBING, ANNOYING, infuriating, kainis! These are words I would use to describe the recent decision of the Department of Health to abandon its vaccination program against cervical cancer, through the anti-HPV vaccine, for students as young as Grade 4 in public schools in the country’s 20 poorest provinces.

The decision was made, news reports say, because of the opposition of Education Secretary Armin Luistro, who is a member of the La Salle Christian Brothers.

I can only hope Brother Armin based his objections on clear, scientific evidence and not on his being a Catholic educator. For if he let his Catholic beliefs, his moralistic bias, dictate his decisions, then he has not only done girls and the women a great disservice, he has also violated their human rights and hurt the national interest.

Dear Brother Armin: I know you have only the purest motivations in disallowing HPV vaccination in public schools. But please reconsider the premises of your decision and weigh these against the long-term welfare of the girls who would have benefited from the lifetime protection afforded by the vaccine.

A news story quotes Health Secretary Janette Garin as bewailing the “misinterpretation and misinformation” surrounding the HPV vaccine, which protects against the spread of the human papilloma virus (HPV) that causes genital warts and have been implicated in the formation of lesions that could develop into cervical cancer. (The available vaccines protect against two types of HPV that cause 70 percent of all cervical cancer cases.)

* * *

MORE specifically, allegations have been made that giving the HPV vaccine to girls at an early age (as early as nine years) “would promote promiscuity.”

The HPV is most commonly spread through sex, mainly through skin-to-skin contact; and presumably, by removing the threat of cervical cancer, vaccination would “allow” or “encourage” young women to engage in unbridled sex.

Really? From time immemorial, parents have tried to scare their children from early sexual experimentation by holding out the bogeys of sexually transmitted infections and unwanted pregnancy. But these scare tactics have so far never succeeded in curtailing young people from engaging in sex, mainly because, so some have said, young people have no or little fear of the future, particularly their mortality.

Given that only a small number of Filipinos are aware of cervical cancer, much less the link to HPV, do you think the HPV vaccine will factor much in the decision of a young woman to have sex with a young man?

And so what if it did? Just because an immunized young woman protected against HPV would thus engage in sex with this fear taken out of her mind, does that mean that we should no longer protect her and just allow her to be infected with the virus and perhaps die from cervical cancer?

The reason the HPV vaccine is recommended for young women from age 9 to their preteen years is that authorities hope to “catch” the vulnerable population before they are exposed to HPV, and because a person’s immune levels are higher at a young age.

* * *

THE reason only about 10 percent of women have availed themselves of the HPV vaccine—about the same percentage as the women who have availed themselves of screening services against cervical cancer—is that the vaccine is currently expensive, costing a few thousand pesos for a series of three injections (although in some cases, only two shots are needed).

Indeed, I considered it a minor miracle when I heard that the DOH would make the HPV vaccine part of the immunization program it would be launching in public schools in poor provinces. It’s a miracle because girls, who commonly receive little by way of attention or services, would be receiving priority treatment by way of a vaccine that is primarily targeted at them.

And why in public schools? Because Filipino girls commonly remain in school for much of their elementary years (unlike boys who usually start dropping out by Grade 4 or so). By catching them in school where it is most convenient to find them, health authorities would be making sure that they could be immunizing most of the girls from the poorest families who would otherwise not be able to avail themselves of the service.

With HPV immunization now unavailable in schools, the girls could instead visit health centers for their shots. But how many parents would know about and be motivated to bring their daughters to health centers for their shots, given the low level of awareness of HPV?

* * *

IF Brother Armin and other DepEd officials don’t care about girls—or are so deathly afraid of their sexuality they would rather have the girls just die from cervical cancer—then they should consider this: In other countries, in Australia, Austria, Israel and parts of Canada, the HPV vaccine is already offered to young boys starting at age 9 up to their teens.

The HPV vaccine also protects against genital warts, which have been implicated in cancers of the anus, the mouth/throat, and penis, which afflict boys and men.

This not only saves the lives and health of men, but also protects the women (and men) they have sex with, if their partners have not been vaccinated yet.

A health website says that some parents may feel uncomfortable “promoting a vaccine that protects their prepubescent child from a disease resulting from hetero- as well as homosexual activity.” But giving the vaccine doesn’t mean “advocating for an early sexual initiation.” It is not “permission to engage in sexual acts early, rather, it is an attempt to fully protect children from HPV and associated illnesses.” Brother Armin, please listen to reason.