There's been a lot of talk here at BlogHer about Gardasil, over the past year or so. I wrote about it a year ago, trying to articulate my feelings on it as a mom to a daughter who would soon be eligible for vaccination. Catherine Morgan has kept her finger on the pulse of the matter with multiple posts, including pointing out that several young girls have died within hours of receiving the vaccination.

My initial optimism was, perhaps, premature.

In the meantime, various states have been discussing mandating the vaccine, or trying to, with varying levels of success. (Check out Vaccine Awakening for a good explanation of what recently happened in the Virginia legislature.)

And now there's this -- HPV-caused oral cancer is on the rise in men, prompting Merck to seek government approval to make Gardasil available to boys, as well.

The HPV virus now causes as many cancers of the upper throat as tobacco and alcohol, probably due both to an increase in oral sex and the decline in smoking, researchers say.

[...]

Experts say a primary reason for male vaccinations would be to prevent men from spreading the virus and help reduce the nearly 12,000 cases of cervical cancer diagnosed in U.S. women each year. But the new study should add to the argument that there may be a direct benefit for men, too.

"We need to start having a discussion about those cancers other than cervical cancer that may be affected in a positive way by the vaccine," said study co-author Dr. Maura Gillison of Johns Hopkins University.

There was, of course, an argument from the very beginning that women weren't infecting themselves with HPV, and why were only half the virus-carrying population being offered the vaccine? But with scientific proof that men's health is being negatively impacted by HPV (rather than just that they're potentially increasing infections in women), it seems likely that Gardasil will soon be approved for use in males.

Or -- as Marci at Addicted to Placebos puts it:

OK, on the positive side - now that HPV is shown to effect men, maybe the religious wingnuts will find the vaccine a little more acceptable since it’s usually men who control those types of organizations. I still can’t make my mind do the necessary gymnastics to understand how preventing cancer equals giving your daughter the go ahead to be sexually active. I guess trying to scare them with death is more effective than trying to scare them with dogma.

(I'm not sure I'd put it quite that way, but the conservative argument against Gardasil that's pretty much based on "Nice girls don't and therefore they don't need the protection" does tend to fall away under this new data....)

But what I really want to get at here is this: What does this new development mean for parents?

Nothing... yet. Should Gardasil be approved for use in males, then, of course, we'll have to decide whether or not we want to have our sons vaccinated.

Me, I'm generally pro-vaccine, and I'm as interested in protecting my son as my daughter. But in the intervening year since I wrote that first piece, some of the information that's come to light about Gardasil has been troubling. At this point I'm not sure I want either of my kids to receive it. It has nothing to do with their genders, and everything to do with just wanting to make sure it's safe. Period.

Still, in looking around the blogosphere, I'm seeing the same sort of knee-jerk reaction I had, myself, back then. Muse muses:

[...] I wonder if men will be a little more willing to scramble to make sure everyone has access to the HPV vaccine now that they know they can GET IT FROM HAVING ORAL SEX. With a woman that has HPV. Who may not know she has it.

[...]

Cowboy up and let go of your high and mighty objections to giving the vaccine to teenage girls.

On the other hand, Mary's son was given a pamphlet about the vaccine -- much to her dismay -- and she's not buying it:

They are really considering giving boys the Gardasil vaccine here - this same vaccine that has reportedly killed three girls in the U.S. Of course they won't come right out and say it was the Gardasil that killed these girls but as a mother I certainly wouldn't risk it.

For her, it comes down to the issue of sexual transmission:

What are these parents saying to their kids by doing it? "Honey I know you're going to be a little tramp so I'm going to make sure you're protected for at least one of the STD's you're going to get okay sweetie?"

Seriously?

To me, the implications brought along by HPV being an STD is really the least of my concerns, but Mary's viewpoint is hardly unusual. I just thought it was interesting that her son was given a pamphlet before Merck has even received approval to dispense Gardasil to men.

I'll be keeping my eye on this one; Merck has marketed so heavily to young women, and the discussion about it has been so female-centric up to this point, I can scarcely imagine how a shift to being an equal-opportunity vaccination will chance things. As for whether I'll be vaccinating my own kids... well... I've got some time to figure it out. Thankfully.

BlogHer Contributing Editor Mir also blogs at Woulda Coulda Shoulda and Want Not.