Her.meneutics: U.K. Christian Says Yes to Abstinence, No to Gardasil

back to Christianity Today

RSS Feed | Help

e-mail to a friend

Twitter feed

What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam.

interests

books and media

church life

justice and politics

relationships and family

sexuality and health

spirituality

theology

women of note

writers

Free Newsletters

more newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

« In the Loop: Pre-Sex Prayer, More Women Pastors, and Father-Daughter Baseball Bonding | Main | Keri Wyatt Kent: The Priority of Neighbor-Love »

September 18, 2009

U.K. Christian Says Yes to Abstinence, No to Gardasil

Should women like Simone Davis be required to take STD-preventing shots if they are not having sex?

Christine A. Scheller

Simone Davis, a 17-year-old British immigrant and devout Christian, will be denied U.S. citizenship unless she agrees to a new immigration requirement that she be vaccinated with Gardasil, a compound that targets human papillomavirus (HPV), which can cause cervical cancer and genital warts.

Davis, who was adopted by her paternal grandmother in Port St. Joe, Florida, applied to Citizenship and Immigration Services for an exemption on moral and religious grounds, saying she is not sexually active and does not plan to be in the near future. Her exemption application was denied. Davis’s citizenship quest has been funded thus far by church groups, but her grandmother, Jean Davis, says she cannot afford an appeal. Other opponents say the requirement places an unfair financial burden on women because a three-shot series of Gardasil costs between $300-$1,400.

Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman Chris Rhatigan told ABC News, "The decision to include HPV as a required vaccine was made by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] . . . The objection to a waiver would have to be to all vaccines, not just Gardasil." But the requirement differs from other vaccines in that it is the only one that targets a virus spread through sexual contact. The other 13 target highly contagious diseases.

Davis’s grandmother says her objection is not only religious and moral. In an interview with ABC News, she said, “All I want is the rights of a U.S. citizen. It’s not mandatory for them to get this. . . . My choice to make an informed decision for the health of my child has been taken away.”

What strikes me as a serious blind spot in the moral-religious opposition argument is its failure to consider the risk of sexual assault. The CDC reports that 10.6 percent of women will experience forced sex at some point in their lives, and 20-25 percent of women in college report having experienced rape or attempted rape. Clearly even young women who live chaste lives can contract sexually transmitted diseases. Therefore, young women and their parents must weigh the risks of vaccination against other potential dangers.

According to the CDC, as of June 1, 2009, 25 million doses of Gardasil have been distributed in the U.S. In that pool, there were 14,072 reports of adverse events. Ninety-three percent were considered to be non-serious, while seven percent were considered to be serious. Thirty-two unconfirmed deaths were linked to the vaccine as well as incidents of blood clots and neurological disorders. More commonly, non-life-threatening side effects included fainting, nausea, and headaches.

Despite concerns about Gardasil's safety, the CDC continues to recommend the vaccination for the prevention of four types of HPV in females ages 11-26, and a Food and Drug Administration panel recently voted to recommend Gardsil for males ages 9-26 for the prevention of genital warts and rare forms of cancer.

In all of this, one thing is clear to me: Governments have both a right and a responsibility to protect citizens from potential health threats and the future burdens that such threats may bring. What is less clear is whether or not a U.S. citizen who adopts a foreign child should have her parenting decisions imposed upon in pursuit of that end, and whether or not HPV poses a serious enough threat to justify Gardasil’s inclusion as a citizenship requirement. On both counts, I think not.

Comments

I don't see what the big deal is. As far as I know, Gardasil won't harm you (although I've heard it's fairly costly and insurance doesn't pay for it) and she's refusing to get the vaccine simply because she won't need it. Or have I missed something?

Muse, it seems that many Christians see vaccinating teen girls as something akin to putting them on birth control...because you can only contract HPV through sexual activity, the vaccination may be seen as undermining the message of abstinence. Our sister site, Kyria, explains the different viewpoints on this issue at http://kyria.com/topics/marriagefamily/parenting/2.30.html?start=1. Hope that helps!

I don't see why it needs to become a point of problem. If she has no immediate need for the vaccine that is great; however she will have it just in case of an unexpected situation or emergency.

Because I work in health care I've had to have the hep triad, and so far I've never been exposed to hepatitis. It is just a precaution.

Isn't it wonderful we have the medical ability to take extra precautions for healthful longevity?

I am aware of the different points of view. My point was that you can still practice abstinence AND take gardasil. I don't see the problem.

I do see the problem. I have chosen NOT to allow my daughter to receive this vaccine. Quite frankly, I think it's a bit premature for the CDC and FDA to back a vaccine that we don't know that much about. It just simply hasn't been around long enough to know what the long term effects will be. What will happen 20 years down the road, when the 11 year old who received this vaccine is 31? Nobody knows. I have done extensive research on this vaccine and made an informed decision as to whether or not my daughter would receive it. Why does this girl and her adoptive mother not have the same rights?

Jackie, I think that was what I was asking. Are there medical contraindications that this pill will harm your body in some way. You're right, it may be premature, but if it will not harm your body, even according to your reasoning, there is no problem.

I am fully committed to purity but i chose to have the gardasil vaccine just incase my future husband (if i get married) has the disease. I was quite lucky in that my government (Australia) covered the full cost of the vaccinations.

Not only will many women experience rape at some point in their lives, but it is possible that "chaste" women may marry men who have symptomless HPV from previous sexual relationships. This is a medical issue, NOT a moral one.

I don't, however, agree that the HPV vaccine should be a citizenship requirement. It seems like a violation of one's civil rights to require it for those seeking to become naturalized citizens.

I again disagree. Couple reasons: 1) This isn't required for any american citizen. So it seems odd that the CDC has required this (under some pressure from interest groups from what I have been reading) but not many other much more common vaccines. 2) This isn't an issue of a random adoption. This is her grandmother, the one who has been caring for her since she was 3 years old. The only reason that she was not granted citizenship earlier was that the paperwork was filed incorrectly in the UK and they had to start all over again. Had it been filed correctly she would have been granted automatic citizenship as a child. 3) There are significant questions about the vaccine. It may have cause 32 deaths as noted above. But also the original trials showed serious reactions in an additional 6.7% of cases (mostly temporary).

I am all for appropriate vaccines, but this just doesn't seem to make sense in an immigration case.

"Whether or not she's having sex" doesn't sound like the issue here - legal and ethical requirements for immigration do. It makes very little sense from my informal legal perspective that immunization from a non-contagious disease that can only be spread one person at a time through deliberate and specific actions should be a factor in whether or not one can become a U.S. citizen. (And yes, I am very aware that the spread of HPV is not always accidental or through consensual actions.) This won't just be a problem for people opposed to Gardasil on religious grounds; there are many who oppose vaccines in general in the belief that they are detrimental to one's health, though this group (or the media) has been silent so far in the Gardasil debate.

Melanie applauded the "ability" to take live-saving or live-improving medical precautions, and I second that applause - but the ability to do something and the decision whether or not to do it are two very different things.

I am of the belief that if a young woman or her family does not want to receive this injection, they should have that right. They should not be forced by anyone to have it. It is their right to make that decision. It does pose problems
whether any may believe it or not. And, it is a matter of
respect as well. If a doctor, or any other medical personnel thought they had to right to force me to receive this injection, I would say "no." It is a matter of personal choice. This vaccine doesn't warrant anything good,
and it is not used as a preventative to cervical cancer, but
rather enhances it.
I hope many are aware of this, and alert. God help any that are not.

Maggie, how does this this vaccination enhance cervical cancer?

"But the [HPV vaccine] requirement differs from other vaccines in that it is the only one that targets a virus spread through sexual contact. The other 13 target highly contagious diseases."

-False. Not only is vaccination for Hepatitis B, a sexually transmitted virus, required for citizenship, it has been routinely given to U.S. children at birth since 1991. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/downloads/vis-hep-b.pdf

Not only does this article overstate the supposedly unique status of the HPV vaccine, it also fails to put the vaccine's purported risks in perspective or to acknowledge that the CDC has not confirmed the causation of the adverse events.

--The number of adverse reports (14,072 out of 25,000,000 vaccinations distributed) is microscopically small (0.00057, or about 0.06%), LESS THAN ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT.

--Of those adverse events, only a small percentage were serious (7% of reported adverse reactions, NOT 7% of all vaccinations). Seven percent of 14,072 = 985. And, 985 out of 25,000,000 = 0.00004. So, of all the vaccines distributed, LESS THAN ONE ONE-HUNDREDTH OF ONE PERCENT, 0.004%, reported a serious adverse incident.

The linked CDC report states: "A major limitation of VAERS data is that there is no proven causal association between the vaccine and the adverse event. The only association is in time, meaning that the adverse event occurred sometime after vaccination. Therefore we cannot conclude that the events reported to VAERS were caused by the vaccine." Also, "As of June 1, 2009, there have been ... 26 reports [of death] confirmed [but] there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine." [The report of 32 unconfirmed deaths is from a new article, but based on old data.]

BTW, the National Weather Service reports your odds of being struck by lightning in your lifetime are 1 out of 5,000, or 0.02%, two-tenths of one percent. Thus, you are FIVE TIMES MORE LIKELY to be struck by lightning (0.02%) as having a serious adverse event following a Gardasil vaccination (0.004%). It's clear this isn't about the science at all.

Teenagers shouldn't text while driving, talk on cell phones while driving and they definitely should not drive drunk.

Therefore, we should take out all seat belts and air bags out of cars that teens drive.

I’m not convinced that Gardasil is safe or necessary, there is a lot of information out there that says it is not. And that because VAERS is a voluntary reporting system problems are not always being reported when they occur.

The Risks and Benefits of HPV Vaccination
Charlotte Haug, MD, PhD, MSc
JAMA. 2009;302(7):795-796.

The current vaccines target only 2 oncogenic strains: HPV-16 and HPV-18. Second, the relationship between infection at a young age and development of cancer 20 to 40 years later is not known. HPV is the most prevalent sexually transmitted infection, with an estimated 79% infection rate over a lifetime5-6 The virus does not appear to be very harmful because almost all HPV infections are cleared by the immune system.7-8

VAERS is a passive, voluntary reporting system, and the authors call attention to its limitations. They point out that only systematic, prospective, controlled studies will be able to distinguish the true harmful effects of the HPV vaccine. These limitations work both ways: it is also difficult to conclude that a serious event is not caused by the vaccine.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/302/7/795

Marketing HPV Vaccine
Implications for Adolescent Health and Medical Professionalism
Sheila M. Rothman, PhD; David J. Rothman, PhD
JAMA. 2009;302(7):781-786.
The new vaccine against 4 types of human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil, like other immunizations appears to be a cost-effective intervention with the potential to enhance both adolescent health and the quality of their adult lives. However, the messages and the methods by which the vaccine was marketed present important challenges to physician practice and medical professionalism. By making the vaccine's target disease cervical cancer, the sexual transmission of HPV was minimized, the threat of cervical cancer to adolescents was maximized, and the subpopulations most at risk practically ignored. The vaccine manufacturer also provided educational grants to professional medical associations (PMAs) concerned with adolescent and women's health and oncology. The funding encouraged many PMAs to create educational programs and product-specific speakers' bureaus to promote vaccine use. However, much of the material did not address the full complexity of the issues surrounding the vaccine and did not provide balanced recommendations on risks and benefits. As important and appropriate as it is for PMAs to advocate for vaccination as a public good, their recommendations must be consistent with appropriate and cost-effective use.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/7/781

"there is a lot of information out there that says it is not [safe or necessary]."

--Well, not really.

CDC reports in the 8/19/09 JAMA article that "The findings were generally not that different from what is seen in the safety reviews of other vaccines recommended for a similar age group, 9 to 26 years old (meningitis and Tdap). Based on the review of available information by FDA and CDC, the HPV vaccine continues to be safe and effective, and its benefits continue to outweigh its risks."

With regard to the (at that time) 32 reported deaths, CDC reported in that same JAMA article that "The 32 death reports were reviewed, and there was no common pattern to the deaths that would suggest they were caused by the vaccine. In cases where there was an autopsy, death certificate, or medical records, the cause of death could be explained by factors other than the vaccine." www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/HPV_JAMA.htm

Similarly, based on a meeting this summer of its Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, the World Heath Organization reports: "Safety of human papillomavirus vaccines ... By March 2009, >60 million doses ... had been distributed either as part of national immunization programmes in 21 countries or by private physicians. ... The accumulating evidence on the safety of HPV vaccines is reassuring.... Several different signals were observed in countries introducing HPV vaccination but none, other than syncope, was judged to be causally related to vaccination." www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/hpv/en/

HPV "is the most common sexually transmitted virus in the United States. ... About 20 million people in the U.S. are infected, and about 6.2 million more get infected each year. ... Most HPV infections don’t cause any symptoms, and go away on their own. But HPV is important mainly because it can cause cervical cancer in women. Every year in the U.S. about 10,000 women get cervical cancer and 3,700 die from it. It is the 2nd leading cause of cancer deaths among women around the world." www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/downloads/vis-hpv.pdf

In a sense you're both right. There is little doubt that Gardisal is a safe vaccination. As pointed out, the FDA has reaffirmed this and to the best of my knowledge all similar groups in all other countries have come to the same conclusion. However, having said that it certainly is far from a necessary vaccination. There is a credible case to be made that it isn't worth the effort. While it's true that about 10,000 women get diagnosed with cervical cancer last year (this number has been reducing about 4% per year even without a vaccine), most of them also hadn't had a pap smear in more than five years.

My whole point is that you don't have to "say no to Gardisal" of you "say yes to abstinence." It isn't either/or and I don't understand the logic of people, including this girl, who think it is. Gardisal has nothing to do with abstinence.

Glad to see a diversity of opinons expressed.

Laura, thanks for linking to CTI's other coverage.

Nickie, those are some cute kids! Good to be reminded who we're talking about.

Joanne & others, I realized after I posted that I hadn't dealt with the sexual histories of the men women sleep with, so thanks.

JLO, thanks for stopping by. Nice to see a familiar "face."

Joe, you say, and I believe you mean well, that "there's a credible case to be made that it's not worth the effort."

-- Sorry, but I suspect that if we were talking about penis cancer, the vaccine would be mandatory for all boys, any possible interference with the "abstinence" message (to the extent it exists at all in the evangelical world) be darned. Witness the indignant crusade this same CT author went on in support of male circumcision essentially as a disease-prevention tool (despite the science to the contrary). For girls, however, she sees all the risks of vaccination (again despite the science to the contrary) and few of the benefits. It's a complete double standard, once again, and not surprisingly, that puts the risks on women and girls.

If you took this out of the area of sexuality issues, most people would be willing to impose on themselves and their children a very small risk in order to prevent a very unlikely but very deadly consequence, particularly when the things you cite as being alternate methods of prevention are sometimes more aspirational goals than reality. For example, if we have 40-some-million uninsured people in this country, likely about half of them women, that's alot of uninsured women who may not have access to regular GYN care, not to mention some of our young people who, because they think they are invincible, don't always take care of themselves.

Christian Lawyer said

Joe, you say, and I believe you mean well, that "there's a credible case to be made that it's not worth the effort."

I always mean well. :) Let me see though if I am understanding you correctly. You're saying were it boys, we wouldn't worry about the vaccine increasing promiscuity. We would just give it to them. As opposed to girls were we are using the notion of "interfering with the abstinence message" as a reason not to vaccinate them. I could certainly buy that this is the case in sexual matters we (as a society) tend to treat boys and girls differently where (especially in a case like this) it there should be no difference.

I will add (in the nicest possible way) that the case to use Gardasil for boys and men is relatively weak. Despite that I would probably get the vaccine myself and for any children.

Christian Lawyer said

Witness the indignant crusade this same CT author went on in support of male circumcision essentially as a disease-prevention tool (despite the science to the contrary). For girls, however, she sees all the risks of vaccination (again despite the science to the contrary) and few of the benefits.

Unless I messed something, the author didn't write a post that over blew the risk of Gardasil. In fact, a follow up post noted that the risk of a complication was equivalent to the risk of being struck by lightning. Now I admit to not having looked closely at her figures but I don't think she was over blowing the risks and underestimating the benefit. In fact, as compared to the OP's circumcision post, this seems well balanced and thought out.

If I had to recap her post I think it is, the risk is small, the benefit is small there is no reason to require the vaccination. And given the situation in the US, I am inclined to agree. It should be available but I don't see the need to require it like one would require a measles or polio vaccine.

Christian Lawyer said

It's a complete double standard, once again, and not surprisingly, that puts the risks on women and girls.

I am not citing alternative methods of prevention or aspirations, this is simply the current state of affairs. That is on average there are about 11,000 cases/year in the US and it has been decreasing about 4% per year at this point. Most cases are in women who haven't had pap smears in more than five years. They are probably heavily weighted to the uninsured. I don't deny that but if the question is, "Is there a strong public health case to require the vaccine, especially for an immigrant/adoption?" I don't think there is. I'd rather see mandatory HIV testing and treatment than mandatory HPV vaccination.

So to sum it up, I agree with you that it's low risk and worth the effort. I don't think that it should be mandated there simply isn't enough of a public health issue.

I agree with Joe here. I am just not sure that there is the public health reasons to mandate. Right now we have lots of vaccines that are for very real and current diseases and lots of people don't get them even though they are much cheaper (especially among a certain subset of Christians homes.)

Let's look at the numbers, if you spend $300 (which is low end right now for this vaccine) for the little over 20 million girls from 10 to 19 (primary target group). And maybe the extra 20 million boys in that age group. Then you have a public health cost of approximately 12 billion dollars. Now there is a death rate of about 4000 a year. Let's assume that you redo the $6 billion every 10 years and you will cut 80 percent of the 4000 a year. So you are assuming a public health cost of $375,000 per life saved. Now I know that most of us are very willing to spend that for someone we know but the question isn't whether we can spend $375K to save one life, but whether there better uses for $375k per life saved in public health spending.

You as an individual have the option to spend the money as you want. But public health officials have the responsibility to make recommendations based on a number of values, and I just am not sure this is the best use of our money. That money would save a ton more lives if we mandated flu vaccines.

Just to be clear Adam, we probably differ slightly. I don't have a problem with publicly funding it or requiring that insurance companies cover it for those who want to use it. I am just saying I don't think it should be necessary as a public health measure to require a vaccination for immigrants or adoption or even generally. Offer the option but I wouldn't make a big deal over it because I don't think it's going to shift the HPV situation in any substantive way.

I think it's absurd to suggest that this vaccination will increase promiscuity. Either you're going to be abstinent or you're not.

Because of Gardasil we are "one less" in our family. Jessie Ericzon died 2 days after the third shot of Gardasil. Our family will fight to our dieing day to get this killer off the market. It is causing to many deaths and bad adverse reactions and it is not proven that the vaccine will last more than 5 years. The JAMA report of August 19,2009 says that the risks out weigh the benefits and Merck's marketing campaign compromises the health industries judgment. It is a shame that Merck and our gov't have to stoop so low to make more money by forcing this deadly vaccine on our girls and young women who want to become a citizen of our great country. Shame on you.

Denise, I'm glad you added your voice to this discussion. I am very sorry about your daughter.

Denise,

I am so sorry for your loss. Can you tell us more about Jessie? What happened? How old was she? What was she like?

Found an article at NY Post:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/my_girl_died_as_guinea_pig_for_gardasil_i4nmIcAdDoQtE4ubmxqGVM

There are obviously many sides to the discussion. My experience with it has been good. My insurance paid for all three sets of shots and I had no negative reaction. I am a 26 year old virgin, however, I decided to get it since my boyfriend was sexually active before he became a Christian.

Hey Joe, it was me that posted the stats about the risks from Gardasil being akin to the risk of being struck by lightning. :)

The CT author, instead, claimed the reported "adverse events," as the CDC calls them, were "linked" to the vaccine or were "side effects" even though CDC makes clear that all that could be said was that the adverse effects followed the vaccine in time. A later CDC report indicates the only type of adverse event that could be linked causally to the vaccine was syncope (fainting). Even so, you're right that even her flawed Gardasil article is better at presenting Gardasil's supposed risks than her circumcision article, which linked to a page making it sound like the numbers of reported problems were "of people" who took the vaccine, not "of people" who reported an adverse event, which, of course, is completely different.

I agree with alot of what you say, though. I reluctantly agree Gardasil should not be mandatory for U.S. children because I generally favor parental rights to decision-making about their kids. But, I think the lack of any controversy surrounding the "routine" vaccination of children at birth with the Hepatitis B vaccine (for a mostly sexually transmitted disease that both boys and girls can get) further demonstrates the double standard that applies to Gardasil (which was first targeted to girls).

For immigrants, however, we require all sorts of things for immigrants to become U.S. citizens that we don't require for home-grown citizens. Since we require immigrants (without ANY controversy) to take the Hepatitis B vaccine, I see no problem similarly requiring the HPV virus. Notably, neither the girl nor her grandmother appear to oppose that vaccine.

Adam S, you make some good points about the cost-benefit analysis. If I could take all the money spent on the HPV vaccine and use it instead for age-appropriate comprehensive sex education, I might go for that, but that's likely to be opposed by most (not all) of the same folks who oppose Gardasil. In the religiosity/high birth rates link in another CT post, the report's authors conjecture that religious conservatives are more effective in teaching their young people to not use contraception than they are in teaching them to be abstinent. Sigh. Perhaps if Gardasil were mandated in this country, the price would come down, or our government would find a way to negotiate the prices down, but that's really a broader problem with our totally messed-up health care system.

Muse, I agree with you completely. It's also absurd, IMO, to possibly stake a child's life on that child's abstinence pledge. Or worse, to make it sound like she's not sincere about her abstinence pledge unless she renounces this vaccine as proof of her intent.

Thank you for asking for more information. I just did an interview with our local TV station for Jessie. The web site is below. Please look at it as most of the information you asked for is found there. All I ask is for all who are thinking of having the Gardasil vaccine, please research it from all aspects as it can be deadly. There are to many negatives not enough positives.
For Jessie who is now our ANGEL, I say SHINE ON!!

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/news-article.aspx?storyid=145162

Ah, Denise, Jessie is your grandaughter. There's nothing like a grandma's love. Thanks for sharing your story with us and with others.

Jessie died a little less than a month before my son Gabriel died by suicide. On the day he died, the FDA announced it would investigate a possible connection between the asthma drug singulair and suicidal ideation. Gabriel had been on Singulair for years when he died.
Statistics good or bad do little to alleviate the pain of loss. My thoughts and prayers are with you.

Denise, I'm so sorry for your loss. And yours too, Christine, I can't even begin to imagine.

While it's true that "[s]tatistics good or bad do little to alleviate the pain of loss," the pain of loss can do much to blind us to facts we want so desperately to deny, especially when we need a scapegoat or some semblance of an explanation.

There is no evidence, even in the linked articles, that Gardasil caused the death of this beautiful young woman. The autopsy, conducted by local health authorities with no stake in the vaccine's success or failure, could not determine a cause of death.

CDC has also looked at this death. In the Aug. 19. 2009 JAMA article, CDC reported, in looking at all confirmed deaths following Gardasil, that "In cases where there was an autopsy, death certificate, or medical records, the cause of death could be explained by factors other than the vaccine." www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/HPV_JAMA.htm

While the sudden death of what appears to be perfectly healthy young woman is extremely rare, it sometime does happen. It's tragic, but not, by itself, proof of anything.

A woman who can get HPV from her husband. If you can prevent cancer, why wouldnt you?

Gardisil should not be required. It is not like measels or other highly contagious diseases. It does not directly prevent cancer, it prevents only 2 (out of many) STDs that have been implicated in cervical cancer. We do not know the long term effects, say 20 years from now, and even a few deaths is a pretty serious side effect.
I have two daughters. My older daughter waited until marriage and married a young man who likewise had waited. My younger daughter, still at home, plans to wait also. We are already dealing with a probably lifetime side-effect of one "safe" medicine with her. In her 1st year of high school she was put on a new asthma medicine. Within just a few months she developed severe GERD (acid reflux) and is still under treatment for it 5 years later. This is susposed to be a rare side-effect, but the gastroenterologist said he sees it all the time with his patients. This will probably be a problem for the rest of her life; and while she is better, she still has to take daily medication, watch her diet carefully, even is limited as to what medicines she can be given for routine illnesses as many antibiotics cause serious flare-ups.
Because of the potential side-effects, and because young women who are not sexually active don't need it, this is a decision that should be made by the young women, their parents, and their family physician, not the government.

Denise,

Your concerns and conclusions are perfectly legitimate, especially given identical symptoms soon after two injections and an inconclusive autopsy report. I applaud you for speaking out. The public deserves to hear from you. Merck, the CDC and the FDA need to.

That said, I'm not making a recommendation either way. I worked for an asthma and allergy doctor for six years. In that time, I witnessed a variety of reactions to flu and allergy shots---from no or little reaction to life-threatening ones. Young women and their parents need to make this decision in consultation with their physicians.

In the case of my son's suicide, I've written about it for CT and elsewhere without mentioning the Singulair connection because of my own skepticism. However, in interviews for the CT article, Aaron Kheriaty, the director of psychiatric residency training at UC Irvine, said people at risk for suicide accumulate what he called hit points that increase suicide risk. Various factors related to Gabriel's asthma, including long-term oxygen deprivation, could have contributed to his distorted thinking in Kheriaty's view. Medication could have as well. Other factors stand out more prominently in the minds of his loved ones.

I bring this up because I understand what it is like to wonder if a compound prescribed to one's child to protect their health may have contributed to their death.

May the Lord grant us His peace in these matters.

God intended children to be raised by two parents. But in this sinful world, parents die, leave, etc. Far more important that a child be raised in the love of the Lord, than that two parents be present. If we support those who are sigle parents by daeth or divorce, why can't we see single adoption as a ministry opportunity, too.
As for those critical of the author for being single, it is better that she stay single than marry a non-christian. Met my husband in church, but he then turned his back on God and church a few years later. That is not ideal either, but I taught all three of my kids to love the Lord, and they are all committed Christians, active in church, and one is in seminary. My husband was only rarely supportive of raising them to be Christians and often critical. I would be the first to discourage anyone from deliberately becoming unequally yoked. But, if children can grow up to love the Lord in an unequally yoked situation, surely a Christian single can do it, too.

Christian Lawyer

Dear, dear, dear Christian Lawyer. Your writing is like a cool drink of water on a long hot day in a dry desert. You are such a voice of sanity for me as a Christian woman who thought I had stumbled out of the 21st Century and into the looking glass. I kept wondering why I didn't fit and the church's "logic" on gender issues made my head ache and question my sanity.

Thank you for posting here, and please keep doing it.

I would suggest reading the articles suggested above about Jessie Ericzon - The issue raised her is important in three diffent areas (in no particular order) : society's attitude toward extramarital sex, a pers of one's right to choose what he/she will or will not allow to be injected into his/her body, and the effictiveness and safety of vaccines in general and this vaccine in particular. Let's not get too focused on one aspect of the debate and thus overlook another equally important issue.

With the high level of doubt as to the necessity, legality, and safety of the vaccine, I think it might be worth asking our government why they are so keen on mandating it.

I am a nurse.A registered nurse for over 40 years.
My heart goes for Christine and Denise.
For me the comments by the Christian Lawyer were dry..
insensitive and pushy.

It is absurd that this vaccine should be a requirement
for citizenship.

Iam surprised at some of the comments I see here. Is this the beginning of us being made to receive the mark of the beast as well. Getting that shot to me says they don't trust her judgment to not have sex until marriage therefore they government will make this decision for her. You can almost see how easy it will be when the time comes for Christians to stand up for what is right and most of them out of fear will be iffy. I think we are still under the law that says we have free will or have we really gone that far astray?

recent posts

Stanton Jones, CedarvilleOUT Come to Campus

Hermenuetics

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

U.K. Christian Says Yes to Abstinence, No to Gardasil

Comments

recent posts

Archives

November 2009
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30

Hermenuetics

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

U.K. Christian Says Yes to Abstinence, No to Gardasil

Comments

recent posts

tags

Archives