2 of 2
2
When faith kills: parents who avoid medical attention for their very sick children
Posted: 08 September 2008 09:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Thanks for the additional information, asanta.  I agree that all women should protect themselves.  I was responding to the post putting down parents for not always getting for their girls, in that they may just not have the money to spare at the time.  Possibly, if the FDA recommends it for males, too, the insurance companies will start paying for the shots.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 September 2008 10:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
Occam - 08 September 2008 09:57 AM

Thanks for the additional information, asanta.  I agree that all women should protect themselves.  I was responding to the post putting down parents for not always getting for their girls, in that they may just not have the money to spare at the time.  Possibly, if the FDA recommends it for males, too, the insurance companies will start paying for the shots.

Occam

(Oh, you mean like they pay for Viagra???) I wonder if the level of drug coverage has to do with the fact that the drug is marketed towards(like birth control) female health issues. I remember a time not so long ago, when female breast reconstruction after cancer was not covered, and hair implants for male pattern baldness was. The breast reconstruction was listed as cosmetic, and the hair implants as essential. This seems to be an ongoing issue with insurance coverage of medications and procedures.

I agree, people fighting to pay their rent/mortgage and put food on the table are not going to have the HPV vaccine as a high priority, that doesn’t make them bad parents.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 September 2008 10:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2008-08-09
asanta - 08 September 2008 10:07 AM

I agree, people fighting to pay their rent/mortgage and put food on the table are not going to have the HPV vaccine as a high priority, that doesn’t make them bad parents.

If the jab is an essential public health measure, it should of course be paid for by the government.

 Signature 

http://lambdadelta.wordpress.com/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 September 2008 05:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Nuts.  I often forget to put a smiley after something when I’m being sarcastic or ironic.  And that’s what I was doing about the FDA, asanta.  I know that they and the insurance companies often don’t bother ranking any medical condition as important unless males suffer it. 

On a somewhat different note, about 50 years ago, after my wife had seven miscarriages and one premature birth, I got a vasectomy.  The company insurance wouldn’t pay for it because it was, as they said, “sort of like cosmetic surgery.”  They still wouldn’t pay even after I promised to never show anyone my scars.  LOL

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 September 2008 07:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
Occam - 08 September 2008 05:06 PM

On a somewhat different note, about 50 years ago, after my wife had seven miscarriages and one premature birth, I got a vasectomy.  The company insurance wouldn’t pay for it because it was, as they said, “sort of like cosmetic surgery.”  They still wouldn’t pay even after I promised to never show anyone my scars.  LOL
Occam

LOL ROFLOL!!!

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2008 08:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2008-04-03

My girls will be getting this as soon as they can…

Follow this link for more info on the cost of the vaccine:

http://cervicalcancer.about.com/od/riskfactorsandprevention/f/vaccine_cost.htm

I just found out today that an employee that used to work for me died recently from cervical cancer.  She left behind a young child.

[ Edited: 07 January 2009 01:49 PM by Doppelganger ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 January 2009 12:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  350
Joined  2008-12-11

The case that originally sparked this post—homicide charges against Wisconsin faith-healing parents—is slowly inching forward.  There was very little media attention to it, not that the Travolta story wouldn’t have buried it anyway, had Jett Travolta died last month instead of this month.

WTMJ-TV and JSOnline.com
updated 4:54 p.m. ET, Mon., Dec. 22, 2008
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28354282/

WAUSAU, Wis. (AP)—A judge has set separate trials for parents accused of reckless homicide for praying instead of taking their 11-year-old daughter to a doctor as she died of undiagnosed diabetes.

Marathon County Circuit Judge Vincent Howard on Monday set Leilani Neumann’s trial to begin May 14 and her husband Dale’s for July 23.

[...]

The parents are charged with second-degree reckless homicide in the Easter death of their daughter, Madeline, at their home in Weston.

Prosecutors say the girl was too weak to speak, eat, drink or walk and the parents had a legal duty to seek medical care instead of just praying for her.

[...]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 January 2009 05:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2236
Joined  2007-04-26
asanta - 04 September 2008 09:25 AM
SkiCarver - 04 September 2008 02:20 AM

I was going to create a thread on the related topic of the HPV vaccine jab.  I have been thinking about those parents who object to the jab. I simply cannot understand their mindset.  Are they trying to restrict their childs behaviour through the fear of cancer? does it represent some form of symbol they disagree with?  What is the child going to think when grown up and is informed that she has cancer which could have been prevented, except her parents refused to allow it? What are the parents going to think when their child does get cancer?

I would appreciate some insight into this, as it makes no sense to me whatsoever.

No, the main gist of their argument (as far as I can see) has to do with sexuallity. There are two separate arguments. (1) My daughter will be a virgin until she is swept off her feet by prince charming and consummate the marriage on their wedding night where they will both lose their virginity! Therefore my daughter doesn’t need the vaccination(2) You will be encouraging my daughter to become sexually active by vaccinating her against this cancer causing agent. Therefore I refuse to allow my daughter to be vaccinated.
It’s the old Madonna/whore complex played out with their daughters! shut eye  And the price could be their lives.

I think you’re right asanta, but the problem with this reasoning is that, boys being boys, most virgin girls will not be marrying virgin husbands. If their husband has had a prior sexual contact, he stands a pretty good chance of being HPV positive ( some studies have shown 70% of sexually active 20 year olds are HPV positive). So even if she’s a virgin, many young women will still be at risk of HPV and cervical cancer when they get married. Interestingly condoms don’t offer much protection against HPV so vaccination is really the only effective protection. Abstinence only works if both partners are abstinent until marriage and faithful though out their marriage.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 January 2009 05:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
macgyver - 07 January 2009 05:17 PM

I think you’re right asanta, but the problem with this reasoning is that, boys being boys, most virgin girls will not be marrying virgin husbands. If their husband has had a prior sexual contact, he stands a pretty good chance of being HPV positive ( some studies have shown 70% of sexually active 20 year olds are HPV positive). So even if she’s a virgin, many young women will still be at risk of HPV and cervical cancer when they get married. Interestingly condoms don’t offer much protection against HPV so vaccination is really the only effective protection. Abstinence only works if both partners are abstinent until marriage and faithful though out their marriage.

Yes, I’ve point out that fact (again and again ad nauseum), but there is a serious disconnect with these people. They won’t take off the blinders and look at reason. I was speaking with one of the doctors I work with last week about it and mentioned that if the same parents knew that one of the primary transmission routes of Hepatitis B is sexual, and secondary IV drug abuse, they would refuse that vaccination, because of course we are encouraging their children to be promiscuous IV drug abusers! We both agreed that it is a good thing it hasn’t come to the attention of the ‘church’. LOL

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2009 04:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2008-04-03
macgyver - 07 January 2009 05:17 PM

 

I think you’re right asanta, but the problem with this reasoning is that, boys being boys, most virgin girls will not be marrying virgin husbands.

Not trying to change the topic here, but I would have to disagree w/ the postulation that boys are typically the more sexually promiscuous ones.  My experience has been quite the opposite—and last time I checked, it takes 2 to Tango.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2009 04:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
Doppelganger - 08 January 2009 04:14 AM
macgyver - 07 January 2009 05:17 PM

 

I think you’re right asanta, but the problem with this reasoning is that, boys being boys, most virgin girls will not be marrying virgin husbands.

Not trying to change the topic here, but I would have to disagree w/ the postulation that boys are typically the more sexually promiscuous ones.  My experience has been quite the opposite—and last time I checked, it takes 2 to Tango.

I’m not making a judgment on which sex has the most virgins at the time of marriage, but last I checked, each sexual encounter is not always between two virgins! One male can have multiple sexual partners, or one woman multiple male partners, it is not a one to one ‘deflowering’.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2009 11:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

I would have to disagree w/ the postulation that boys are typically the more sexually promiscuous ones.  My experience has been quite the opposite

Wow! You have certainly managed to discover a statistical anomaly! The statistics on this are quite strong.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2009 12:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Agreed with Chris. I don’t remember the numbers but it goes in the following order: gay men, straight men, gay women, straight women.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2