Should Britain Jab The Men

1
Should Britain jab the men?

Josh Chambers discusses the pros and cons of vaccination men against the HPV.
Controversial, difficult and un-equal; these three adjectives describe the topic surrounding one of the greatest achievements in modern medicine in the 21st century, the HPV vaccine. In 2008 the UK government introduced a nation wide immunisation program for females only. However, in 2014 the playing field has changed. New data, new warnings and new recommendations make the UK government seem out of date in their program. Its time to rethink the program and time to include boys in this 6 yearlong marathon of female only Human Papilloma vaccination program. September 2008 marked a turning point of the beginning of a nationwide immunisation program in the UK; which was revised by introducing the new vaccine by Gardasil. This quadrivilant vaccine protects against two harmful oncogenic strands as well as two other strains that together cause 90% of genital warts. When first released across the world the vaccines were given a full licence to a vaccination of both sexes, the analysis then prevails itself, is it beneficial for boys to be vaccinated? The vaccination in the UK is delivered through a schools program, which has been recognised as the most effective method delivering the highest heard immunity. The vaccine - dubbed the Cervical cancer vaccine - does indeed protect against the most common sexually transmitted disease in the world, with 80% of us meeting the virus at some point in our lives. However,
little do people know the HPV causes more than cancers of the cervix. Its responsible for cancers of the anus, penis, vagina and vulva, and more recent evidence has proven the link between the HPV and the throat, and mouth cancers. 25-30% of oral cancers are HPV related. Despite this, for most of us the vaccine is harmless, causing minor issues such as verrucae. Despite initial data suggesting that it would not be cost effective, Australia and the USA introduced the vaccination program to boys after the price was lowered. The results were staggering. The topic is currently being debated in Westminster by the Joint Committee of Virology and Immunology and in Scotland by an independent committee, and despite me contacting them both, their conclusions are behind closed doors. There are 15 types of HPV that cause different cancers. One article suggests that in order to sufficiently protect against other HPV cancers, boys must be included in the vaccine. At the moment there is reduced effect of the vaccine in boys, particularly seen in the Australian study where there is no significant effect in men
IDEAS Magazine
who have sex with men. Therefore, one could argue, that omitting boys from the vaccination program greatly increases their risk of these lesser known cancers. This risk has been highlighted as so significant that if current trends continue unchecked, cases HPV and oropharyngeal cancer will exceed cases of cervical cancer by 2020. One journal has argued that the vaccination program should include men in order to achieve a high coverage rate across the world. Evidence from the past with the 1996 rubella vaccine showed the reoccurrence of the virus in men and pregnant women. Although the mode of transmission and the virus itself differs, it could demonstrate the potential pitfalls of keeping a single sex program. There is a significant argument for introducing the vaccine to men because currently homosexual men receive no benefit from the single sex program. Heterosexual men receive a near equal benefit of the vaccine through having sex with women who have been vaccinated. Therefore, the virus remains prevalent in homosexuals. This is confirmed by the figures for genital warts in Australia, studies have shown that there has been an 81.8% decrease in heterosexual men but no conclusive decrease in MSMs (Men who have sex with men). With the increase of homosexuality, oral and anal sex coupled with an increase in unsafe sex without condoms there is an increasing risk of HPV for homosexuals. Thus, this before minority could be the next HPV
outbreak. Should the government just deal with this now? The CDC in America has suggested vaccinating just homosexual men in the past. However, this concept is flawed because the vaccination involves a program before sexual activity starts to get the best results. This would require the boys to know their sexuality at a young age which is not often the case. There would also be segregation in schools for those receiving the vaccine and those not. Vaccinating just homosexual men is not a viable or economic option. Vaccinating boys and girls does not present a very cost effective benefit. This is shown by many studies suggesting that boys receive a near equal benefit from the vaccination of the girls as the girls do because the majority of sexual partners are heterosexual. Also, by just vaccinating girls you reach a wider cohort of people because the majority of women have older male partners allowing a benefit to be seen among older men. This supports the argument that a sex equal program is not financially or medically beneficial on the whole with heterosexual partners. Its clear looking at the evidence that there are arguments for each side. For now in the UK though its time to wait and listen to the verdict of the Joint Committee for Virology and Immunology to make its verdict on whether or not to include boys in the program. Should Britain jab the men? I suppose we will have to wait and see.
IDEAS Magazine

Should Britain Jab The Men

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Should Britain Jab The Men

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Should Britain Jab The Men

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Should Britain jab the men?

You might also like