The Governors of St Monica's School in Manchester have taken the decision that the school will not allow the vaccination against the HPV virus to be administered at school and have said that the decision rests with the parents, not the school.One important consideration is the safety of the vaccine itself. Joe Sowerby draws attention to the fact that the school governors, not local or national government agencies, have the responsibility for the decision whether or not to allow the vaccinations to be carried out at the school. Since pupils have suffered side effects, from the drug, the school took the decision to leave the matter with the parents (See: Catholic Commentary: St Monica's and HPV vaccinations and the more recent post, This and that from the media)
Jackie Parkes has the letter from the School Governors in which the school encourages parents to take their own decision in the matter and to discuss it with their GP who will be aware of their daughter's medical history - and indeed to her if they decide she is to have the vaccination. (Jackie's decision is a definite "No".)
Fr Ray Blake has raised the question on his blog (see: St Monica & HPV vaccine.) Both the post and the comments box are well worth reading. There, the impeccably orthodox and pro-life Paulinus writes in favour of the vaccination since a girl of unimpeachable virtue might marry a man who has a less virtuous past. Lucille suggests in response that either party can be tested for STDs before marriage.
Lifesite news has been following the story with an article on St Monica's and one on the same issue in Scotland.
Predictably, the governors of St Monica's have come under attack. For example, a regional paper has got quotes from some disaffected parents who presumably want the school to take all responsibility for the vaccination. See: Manchester Evening News article Calls for cancer vaccine rethink ("Furious parents are demanding ...")
The school has not received any support in their decision from the Catholic authorities. The Catholic Education Services issued a statement on the HPV vaccination programme in June and official responses have been based on this statement, particularly the following passage:
There is nothing in Catholic teaching to suggest that there is anything wrong with the use of vaccination against this disease, nor does it undermine the Church’s teachings in regard to human relationships and sexual activity.The word "use" is a slippery one here. The vaccine itself is an inanimate object and cannot undermine the Church's teachings but the circumstances in which it is given and the teaching related to it could undermine them very much indeed without a clear message promoting chastity. Unfortunately, the statement does not deal with the question of the relationship between home and school in this matter, nor about the need for any such programme to be accompanied in a Catholic school by a clear presentation of the Church's teaching on chastity.
The Catholic Bishops of Alberta, Canada, have issued a sensible statement on the matter (see the Western Catholic Reporter article). They emphasise that the decision regarding the vaccine is a parental, not a government matter, and that
Outside of marriage, abstinence is not only clearly the choice that leads to spiritual and moral well-being, but it is obviously the best protection against risks of disease.
Gerald Warner on his blog offers robust support for the school's decision: Catholic school refuses to promote promiscuity via HPV vaccination.
I think he is right to see this in terms of politically correct orthodoxy and the Bishops of Alberta seem to me to have come up with a good and politically aware response.
11 comments:
My problem with all of this is the oxymoronic 'Catholic Education Service'. Whenever these people opine about anything, I tend to think the oppositie of what they're trying to tell us is the case.
I know that's probably a great over-generalisation, but I've yet to see anything coming from that expensive body that can be interpreted unequivocally as being in full conformity with Catholic magisterial teaching.
As to the specifics of this case, it seems to me that the governors have the right to decide what goes on in their school, having taken account of the information available to them.
As for cervical cancer - yes, of course, we should do what we can to eradicate this and, indeed, other cancers. However, given the track record of the NHS under this present government in their relentless 'sex-education' programme, I cannot help but think that it leaves young girls very vulnerable to the predators of promiscuity: "I've had the jab, so I'm OK" and they are then open to participating into the promiscuous lifestyle so encouraged by government sponsored intiatives.
Impeccably orthodox and pro-life
Father, I'm flattered. I am also a poor fallable sinner in need of God's grace and like all good Catholics, I hope, open to reason in the light of the teaching of the Church. I stand by my words on Father Blake's blog but accept that there are others of my brethren who will differ, including, clearly, the board of St Monica's who I accept are acting in good faith. There is clearly an issue of health and safety here and this may be at the heart of the board's decision. I also do not trust this government not to use the issue as a sly way to undermine Catholic teaching on sexual morality.
That said, my one concern is the protection of girls who may through no fault of theirs, find themselves with cervical cancer when this would have been easily preventable. I have watched two patients die of this disease this year - young women with husbands who are now widowers and children who are now motherless and this may colour my view. I do not want further deaths, widowers and motherless children if this is so easily preventable. I have other patients still alive who have pain and continuing disablity due to cervical cancer.
Whatever you think in this debate I would ask your prayers for them.
Information regarding sexually transmitted diseases: The Human Papillomavirus
Amongst the proliferation of sexually transmitted diseases since the sexual revolution, Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common. There are more than one hundred different types of HPV, of which between thirty and forty types cause genital infections. Most people who contract the virus do not suffer any consequences or symptoms. It is both incurable but not permanent. However, it does cause 99.7% of cervical cancer. Cervical cancers kill approximately 288,000 women annually. According to the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 46 percent of teenage girls acquire HPV from their first sexual relationship. The majority of sexually active women have been infected with one or more types of HPV.
It is clear that the safe sex message promoted by both the NHS and the government is ineffective in its attempt to prevent such a virus. Even virgins can get STDs, including oral cancer from HPV. Many people will contract this virus because they have wrongly been informed that they were engaging in ‘safe’ sex. The virus is spread from skin to skin contact throughout the entire genital area, including one’s thighs and lower abdomen. The National Cancer institute in America reported to congress that condoms are ineffective against HPV. Other reports have shown that condoms have little or no protection against HPV. HPV will normally clear on its own. However, when a husband is infected with it, his wife is five times as likely to get cervical cancer.
A recent advert in the cinema informed British moviegoers that “STDs are spreading fast - use a condom.” As oral sex can transmit virtually every type of STD, many young people today are being told lies about ‘safe’ sex. One can only hope, act and pray that the era of handing out contraceptives like sweets will come to an end. The attempt to protect yourself from someone you should be most intimate with is particularly absurd as it creates a chasm rather than true intimacy. This absurdity leads to the irony today that promiscuity can lead to infertility by catching certain STDs. The American college of obstetricians and gynaecologists have stated that the use of a condom does not provide reliable protection against herpes. There are no significant differences in catching Chlamydia between those who used condoms and those who didn’t. This can lead to infertility.
There is a way to protect yourself 100%: physically, emotionally and spiritually. This is called chastity. As unmarried relationships never improve as a result of sexual activity, chastity protects our relationships from dangerous consequences.
Good on St Monica's and Governor Power! The right decision. Sadly this vaccine is about to be administered to girls in our local Catholic Comprehensive. As parents we were given forms to fill in simply giving a 'yes' or 'no' answer and if 'no' send reasons - which we did. Apart from all the medical evidence which is quite voluminous in terms of the adverse reactions to this stuff I have much higher aspirations for my girls than simply assuming they'll be sleeping around with multiple partners from the age of 12 onwards. Surely all schools let alone Catholic schools should be setting their students on the right course when it comes to making the right moral choices. A poll in the Daily Mail some time ago also found that few children (their parents) were taking up the offer of this vaccine and here's what one reader said;
There are a few reasons to avoid this jab:
1. Since at least 2003, the FDA has been well aware that Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) has no direct link to cervical cancer;
2. HPV is self-limiting;
3. There is some evidence that the vaccine may increase the risk of precancerous cervical lesions by 44.6 percent in some women; and
4. Some girls have died after been given the jab, some within hours.
But the makers of the vaccine will be laughing all the way to the bank should it become mandatory. I wish I could believe common sense will prevail but most likely money will.
Then there's the recent HPV vaccine scam in Brazil where it was found that the vaccination programme was also a way to sterilise girls. Basically the vaccine was 'spiked' with hormones that would render the girls unable to conceive in the future. And all this apparently in full knowledge of the WHO!
Funny old life isn't it!
Dear Father Tim
The failure of the Catholic Education Service, and indeed the bishops, to use this as a 'teaching moment' to promote chastity with reasoned arguments puts ever more pressure on parents who do not wish for their children to have this jab for moral and health reasons.
Several years ago, a courageous mother that we know took her two girls out of their Catholic school for 'Red Nose' day because she did not want them to give money to this charity in light of the abortion issue. Instead she took them to help at a homeless centre for a few hours.
Because the bishops remained behind a screen of offical statements (in which the Red Nose Day was condoned in schools) our friend was caused much hassle from school authorities.
I telephoned the E and W Bishop's Conference at the time to ask if this lady could be supported. The person that I spoke to on the help desk was not exactly bothered and referred me on to... the official statements already made...
Well done to the bishops of Alberta! And indeed to John Smeaton of SPUC who is constantly pushing on these issues.
Father
There appears to be at least three issues here and they are all getting mixed up.
The first is probably the easiest to deal with. Gerard Warner is in danger of becoming a grumpy old man blaming the Labour Government for the outbreak of political correctness masquerading as thought. Sadly the political class/ liberal elite now dominates all three parties. It’s impossible to see any difference in the social policies being put forward by all three of them. The gap between them now amounts to a couple of percentage points in their respective spending plans. They are all pro-choice, again a few weeks either way is the only difference between them. It appears they all accept abortion for the disabled up to birth. “Utilitarianism rules ok!”
The second point is the Church’s teaching on human sexuality. Traditional morality has been all but abandoned for the social gospel. We are collectively guilty of driving too much, travelling too much, and not buying enough fair trade products. BTW if Tesco is making money on them are they really such a good deal? Sexual misconduct is now way down the list of subjects to bring up with the faith community.
Having listened only yesterday morning to the nonsense now being put out by Cafod it hard to see why they don’t amalgamate with Oxfam and save the rest of us the pain of their annual pitch for more money to support dubious programmes in Africa. Dangerous behaviour is subsidised and there appears to be little attempt to link actions with consequences. As dreary old Gordon says, “this is the age of irresponsibility.” Someone else is always to blame and there is always someone ready to pick up the tab.
The third point is really that the vaccine is morally neutral. It protects from a vicious disease, as do all the other vaccines we provide for our children. They all carry some risk. I think it takes a leap of imagination to believe that this vaccine will encourage any more risky personal behaviour than we already have. Large numbers of teenage children are sexually active. The statistics on sexually transmitted diseases tell their own story. The action of the school seems to border on the insane. No doubt it has badges for healthy eating and all the other nonsense seen on school letterheads these days. Surly the vaccination programme could be used as a teaching aid on human relationship and the place of sexual intercourse in them. Instead, the school only makes itself look foolish sending the parents off to overworked GPs surgeries to carry out a procedure that can best be done in a school.
I just think its another nail in the coffin of Catholic Education and an ill thought out knee-jerk reaction that avoids the schools primary task of teaching children that foolish personal behaviour leads to pretty dismal personal outcomes.
Just to back-up the details in my earlier post here's a very good YOU-TUBE link for more information on the HPV vaccine issue:
http://www.truveo.com/HPV-Bomb-HPV-Virus-Does-NOT-Cause-Cancer-HPV/id/3767680203
Seems like there's a lot more controversy within the scientific ranks than anyone is letting on. Why should 'they' be using my girls as guinea pigs in order to make their $zillions, when the whole question of HPV and cervical cancer remains a big unknown? I am not prepared to risk my child's health at this time and the risks are VERY real! The right message for our children should be to make moral choices for chastity before marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sorry if that's too late for many out there, but we have to draw a line in the sand and start anew.
If I remember rightly, before MMR, Rubella immunisation was given - to girls only - in early teenage years because Rubella is rather nasty when pregnant (for mother, child or both, I'm afraid I forget). I don't remember any implications of presumed unchastity associated with the vaccination. I was aware that I needed it to guard against Rubella when pregnant but didn't see that there was any presumption that that would be imminent. It's a parallel situation, surely?
...apart from the reported side-effects of the jab. As a parent, that's what I'd be considering (if any of my daughters were even remotely teenaged!).
I would urge ever mother faced with having to make a decision of whether or not to have her daughter vaccinated with this new 'cancer preventing' vaccine to read up and become more informed about the actual vaccine, and what it can and can not do. There has been much publicity on the internet about this over the last 12 months or so. I found this article, which speaks volumes about how the marketing of this vaccine is at fault and in some cases, totally misleading to the general public. In it Dr.Diane M. Harper, a lead researcher in the development of the human papilloma virus vaccine says, "...vaccinating little girls now is not going to protect them later. Since it can take a decade or more to even manifest itself as dysplasia, the HPVs against which this vaccine works may infect a little girl at the age she needs the vaccine most - meaning she will have to have a booster at the right point in time or she will not be protected. And, remember, it won't work at all if she was positive for the virus when she was inoculated in the first place..." This article, which you can read HERE was written over 18 months ago!
I do remember the Rubella vaccine - and indeed the controversy surrounding it along very much the same lines.
Is that so? I stand corrected. Just goes to show how you don't know what's going on when you're little!
Post a Comment