Cervical Cancer Vaccination- UK

Baby4

This post has been deleted.

WindSock

Sure, why not. What harm is it going to do? Just like an MMR vaccination.

Any step to help prevent cancer is surely a good thing.

muletide

I was reading about this in one of the sunday papers and it is estimated that up to 75% of sexually active women have this virus. You can only be certain that the vaccination is effective if you use it on virgins that is probably why they dont give it to everyone.

I am also led to believe that it is quite expensive as new vaccines tend to be.

Jimoslimos

Baby4 wrote:

This post has been deleted.

What do you mean? Should it be mandatory? No, you'll have a hard job trying to do that.
Should women older than 12-13 be available to get this free? Well yes in an ideal world but I fear you may have to pay. I also think many (older)women will be content to carry on with screening, those around the late teens/early twenties may consider paying for it.

little miss

I think this is such a good idea. Don't understand the argument that it might encourage young girls to have underage sex. If it saves lives, then I'm all for it.

Nevyn

Yes it should be free and currently it is only advailibe to those who have no been sexually active.

tallaght01

if it is going to be free it should probably undergo a costbenefit analysis. ie how many lives are we saving for each, say 1000euro spent on these vaccines. If t's good value for money, and we can afford it, then fine. If not, the money could save more lives (or quality life years) somewhere else, then that's probaly where it should go. But in principle, I'd like to see it introduced. Obviously, you can't make it mandatory.

sportswear

i believe the proposed price in ireland is 300x 3 doses

Schlemm

How long are you protected for with a single course of the vaccination?

MooseJam

it should be available to anyone who pays for it, saying it should be free is silly, sure then they would just be paying for it through taxation

little miss

MooseJam wrote:

it should be available to anyone who pays for it, saying it should be free is silly, sure then they would just be paying for it through taxation

So we should limit something that prevents cancer only to those who can afford it? That's ridiculous.

MooseJam

little miss wrote:

So we should limit something that prevents cancer only to those who can afford it? That's ridiculous.

how much does this cost, I meant there's no such thing as free, sure you can call it free but those availing of it will still be paying for it through taxation

little miss

Surely its worth exploring the possibility? Its not like the taxes most of us pay aren't high enough as it is! And If you've ever seen anyone suffer from or die from cervical cancer, you'd know why I think this is so important. Some of my friends are even too scared to go for smear tests here in Ireland, or can't afford to go for them and just presume they're ok but usually there are no physical symptoms of cervical cancer until it is too late to treat it. I just think anything that can eradicate that should be available to as many people as possible, and as cheaply as possible.

tallaght01

little miss wrote:

So we should limit something that prevents cancer only to those who can afford it? That's ridiculous.

every single cancer is related to your socio-economic status anyway, breast cancer and skin cancer. Fruit and veg prevent many diseases, and we limit them to those who can afford them.

OctavarIan

little miss wrote:

I just think anything that can eradicate that should be available to as many people as possible, and as cheaply as possible.

Maybe this IS as cheaply as possible? Since it's a new vaccine they can't afford to give it away for free. To do that they'd have to take money from elsewhere in the budget at the detriment of other areas. Lots of medication isn't free, and I'm sure this will become cheaper in time.

Baby4

This post has been deleted.

little miss

Baby4 wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Really sorry to hear about your cousin. That's awful. Its so sad that even a smear test didn't pick it up.

So there's no extra money that could be used for this? The Irish Reported on Monday that the HSE executive had failed to spend nearly a hundred million last year. Its ludicrous that cancer prevention comes down to who can afford it or not...

r3nu4l

As we speak I am writing my 7th article about this vaccine for the company producing the vaccine

Firstly, it is not a cancer vaccine, it is a vaccine against the human papilloma virus (HPV), and infection with certain types of HPV can lead to cervical cancer in women.

The reason the Vaccine has been recommended for 11-16 year olds is because studies have shown 100% efficacy in preventing infection in this population as opposed to 16-23 year olds and older. If you already have one of these strains then the vaccine may still protect you from cervical cancer but not to the extent that it would do if administered prior to infection.

The vaccine protects agains 4 strains (quadrivalent vaccine) of HPV (HPV 6, 11, 16 & 18). These four strains are responsible for the vast majority of cervical and vulvo-vaginal cancers.

The vaccine was also initially tested in boys because two of the strains are more common in boys and are passed onto girls during sexual intercourse. It proved effective in boys but the UK Government feel that giving it to girls is enough.

In clinical trials the vaccine has been given in 3 stages. An initial administration followed by a booster at 3 months and another at 6 months.

There is another vaccine undergoing trials produced by another company which protect against only 2 of the above strains (bivalent vaccine). This is still very effective but has not yet published any Phase III clinical data. The quadrivalent vaccine has published two sets of Phase III data showing 100% efficacy in protecting against these 4 strains of HPV virus.

EDIT: the development of a vaccine from scrach to the end of a Phase III trial usually costs in excess of $150,000,000. This can be as high as $300,000,000. The companies have a need to balance profit with cost unfortunately. This profit doesn't just cover shareholders, it covers the cost of development of other drugs that may or may not ever come to the market. Some drugs have over $100 million spent on development before a potentially hazardous effect is discovered and development stops. Profit on successful drugs covers that loss.

Baby4

This post has been deleted.

r3nu4l

Baby4 wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Quite simply that the vaccine should be available to all who want it but that those women who are over 25 should have to pay for it unless they are on a medical card.

I provided the information so that people could make a better choice in the poll. I don't like dis-information influencing polls. There's nothing worse than the misinformed making a choice based on what they think they know.

mloc

Well, I think there should be some sort of trade off between giving as many people the vaccine as possible but avoiding giving it to those who already have the virus (the vast majority of women).

HPV is pretty common, and whilst it is neccessary to be infected for most forms of cervical cancer, infection alone quite obviously does not result in cancer.

Schlemm

They should be vaccinating fellas as well I reckon, if it'd reduce the infection rate, then why not?

Jimoslimos

r3nu4l wrote:

EDIT: the development of a vaccine from scrach to the end of a Phase III trial usually costs in excess of $150,000,000. This can be as high as $300,000,000. The companies have a need to balance profit with cost unfortunately. This profit doesn't just cover shareholders, it covers the cost of development of other drugs that may or may not ever come to the market. Some drugs have over $100 million spent on development before a potentially hazardous effect is discovered and development stops. Profit on successful drugs covers that loss.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the drug companies shouldn't be making a large profit from this. The question is whether the government (yes tax payers as a collective) or the individual should foot the bill.

The decision regarding which groups to vaccinate is a little different to what we might have seen with other vaccines. The aim is not to completely eradicate (as in smallpox) the virus but to give the greatest level of protection possible - this is only possible in those guaranteed to be HPV negative.

Also given the lamentable health education in Ireland it may also give a false sense of security to older women who avail of the vaccine. I believe that the vaccines administered to 12-13 yr olds accompanied with a better screening programme (is this even free in Ireland?) is probably the best and most cost effective way forward

mloc

Agreed.

Immunising everyone would be a waste of resources that could be better invested in other health initiatives.

Capt'n Midnight

Victor will probably have a more accurate figure but for roads you are talking about spending a million to save a life. At €300 per vaccination you get 333 vaccinations, but would that be enough to save a life ?

There are many other ways of spending money. Perhaps mandatory / free health screening for people every few years would save money by catching stuff early.

You could save a lot more lives by spending money on clean water in the third world, but then their goverments would just buy more weapons to oppress the well users with.

As for the cost of medicine development obscene. The companies spend soo much money because they hope to get it all back and more by charging quite a lot. If research was public WITHOUT patents how much would basic medicines cost and what would be researched ? Imagine a world where governments, health boards, charities and so forth paid for funding of universities and private and public research institutes with the sole priviso that anyone could use those medicines without royalties.

The effects would be to genericise medicines immediately, instead of when the patent expires, that health care workers would determine what needs to be researched not bean counters and shareholders, also mean that a lot of duplicate research would be eliminated and private organisations would not need to keep research hidden.

r3nu4l

Jimoslimos wrote:

I believe that the vaccines administered to 12-13 yr olds accompanied with a better screening programme (is this even free in Ireland?) is probably the best and most cost effective way forward

I agree totally, education is definitely the key and the possibility of generating a false sense of security has already been raised in the UK because despite free cervical screening on the NHS, up to one third of all women with a screening appointment failed to attend for screening.

So in short, both before and after administration there should be intensive education as to what the virus is, how it can lead to cancer and what the vaccine does to prevent that. Education should continue until the final school leaving age and the importance of lifelong continued screening should be emphasised.

claire-g

Baby4 wrote:

This post has been deleted.

eh not sure you can force people to have a vaccination if they dont want it so it would have to be optional, it should certainly be available to any woman who wants it and if they are young teenagers then parents/guardians would have to consent.

pokerwidow

Jimoslimos wrote:

Also given the lamentable health education in Ireland it may also give a false sense of security to older women who avail of the vaccine. I believe that the vaccines administered to 12-13 yr olds accompanied with a better screening programme (is this even free in Ireland?) is probably the best and most cost effective way forward

Down here it is free for any woman over 25. I must admit that I am overdue my test but plan to get one done during the holidays.

Here is the link http://www.icsp.ie/

Edit to add "With organised quality assurance of every key step of the entire process, it is estimated that an 80% reduction in mortality could be achieved."