- Share This Post
- submit
- 21
-
Sparkle (0)
I haven't been able to stop thinking about the new HPV vaccine, Gardasil, since Denise reported on it a few days ago. I'd left a comment on Denise's post saying that I planned to ask our pediatrician about it... and it's been on my mind ever since.
My daughter isn't even 9 yet. When I mentioned to someone that I was hoping to have her vaccinated as soon as possible (and 9 is the minimum age for eligibility), I was asked why I don't just wait a few years. Indeed, most of the talk I've seen about attempts to make the vaccination mandatory seem to be targeting sixth grade---that is, age 11 or 12, typically---as the "right time" to have it done.
Basically, having her vaccinated any time before she becomes sexually active will give her the necessary protection. I've even heard it asked if it would make more sense to wait and let it be her decision, later on.
On the one hand, we're talking about a stunning medical breakthrough: A vaccine that can effectively protect against cancer. On the other hand, it's a charged issue: The virus in question is sexually-transmitted. Whether we want to believe that changes things or not, it does. (Just take a look at some of the conservative organizations like the Liberty Counsel, who wants you to believe that Gardasil is just a liberal medical sanction for promiscuity.)
As a mother, I have to do what I believe is in my children's best interest. I read this story in Jane and realized that the choice, for me, is quite simple. Gardasil is a vaccine that can prevent a deadly disease; I don't want my daughter to contract said deadly disease if anything can be done to prevent it. Ergo, a-vaccinatin' we shall go.
I realized something else as well: If I have my daughter vaccinated at 9, it's all about disease prevention and nothing more. If I wait until she's older, then the other issues creep in unbidden. If I have my 11-year-old vaccinated just as puberty is coming to roost, I will feel compelled to tie this to issues of her budding sexuality, and perhaps seize on this rather inorganic opportunity to espouse my personal values and embarrass her terribly. If I wait until she's a full-fledged teenager, the unpleasant reality is that---all parenting and values aside, no matter what they are---we may be too late, for one thing, and she may feel compelled to seize on this rather inorganic opportunity to either protest her chastity or tell me what I can do with my values and embarrass us both terribly. She may even---with the invincible wisdom of a teen---insist she doesn't need it.
It's not that I don't want to be able to discuss these issues with my daughter. I do want to, but I don't want those discussions to be tied to an injection. And it's not that I don't want my daughter to think long and hard about when and how she shares herself sexually with another. I hope that she will.
In the meantime, I have an option available to protect her, and to protect her before it becomes an emotionally-laden event. She will be vaccinated as soon as possible at age 9; I will continue to parent her in a way that I hope allows her to develop into a thoughtful, responsible, mature young woman; she will hopefully never know the horror of cervical cancer.
Think about that last bit there. Is there really a time that's too soon to protect your child from something like that? I don't think there is.
[image courtesty of San Diego Center for Children]
BlogHer Contributing Editor Mir also blogs at Woulda Coulda Shoulda and Want Not.












