A Vaccine Debate Once Focused on Sex Shifts as Boys Join the Target Market

[ccharles000]

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 26, 2009; Page A01

When a vaccine designed to protect girls against a sexually transmitted virus arrived three years ago, the debate centered on one question: Would the shots make young girls more likely to have sex?

Now the vaccine's maker is trying to get approval to sell the vaccine for boys, and the debate is focusing on something else entirely: Is it worth the money, and is it safe and effective enough?

"We are still more worried about the promiscuity of girls than the promiscuity of boys," said Susan M. Reverby, a professor of women's studies and medical history at Wellesley College. "There's still that double standard."

The shift in the discussion about Gardasil illustrates the complex interplay of political, economic, scientific, regulatory and social factors that increasingly influence decisions about new types of medical care. For the vaccine, the new dynamic reflects a strategic tack by Gardasil's critics, growing concern about health-care costs, fears about whether medical treatments are being vetted adequately and stubborn biases about gender, experts say.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/25/AR2009032503682.html?hpid=topnews

[crikkett]

1. Who's directing the debate?

The vaccine maker? Professor Reverby? The Washington Post?

Does anyone else suppose that this article is actually meant to tell us what to think about the promiscuity of girls vs. boys?

[Igel]

2. I don't.

Look, the professor of women's studies has nothing to write about if it says nothing interesting about women in society. The issue must be problematized to be of interest.

The problem is, there are numerous debates. The first question is always, Is it safe? Then the question is, How effective is it? This gets into whether it's worth the money--if it costs $500 million to save a life, the answer is almost invariably 'no'. Cost/benefit analyses are standard, I'd assume, for all vaccines being targeted at a new audience.

In this case, another question isn't, How effective is it in helping males? but, How effective is it to help males in order to prevent the more serious problems that females have from the virus? This is a question that seldom gets asked.

These are the policy wonks, insurance companies, and the like.

Now, there are the critics. Dangers are magnified to make their point--whether it's the risk of medical side effects or social/moral side effects. You go where the concern is. Yes, there's a double standard, just look at the reactions to any article dealing with a 16-year-old student in bed with a 30-year-old teacher. Is it on the part of the critics, on the part of the general public, on the part of the insurance agency folk or the policy wonks? Well, the article says "critics". They're the ones that ultimately want to guide the debate. Since this is a debate I haven't heard a single thing about until this article covering the debate, they're obviously not doing a very good job.

[crikkett]

3. Wow, what a great post!

Thank you.

You made many great points.