Young Carers of The Mix, we need you! Tell us about your experiences of our services and give yourself a chance to win £50 of Amazon vouchers.

Catholic school bans girls from receiving cervical cancer vaccine on its grounds

SystemSystem Posts: 8,585 Community Managers
Though apparently it's just to do with health concerns, rather than religious sexual prejudice... :rolleyes:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7633761.stm



Add this to the list of reasons of why faith schools are abhorrent and must be eradicated at all costs.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Worth noting that like the article says it appears to come from the governors, not the staff and is specific to that school.

    Arguably it says more about the level of power governors have despite being completely untrained and unqualilfied.
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Also worth noting the NHS won't give the vaccine to people under 18 years of age. But you can get it privately. It seems ridiculous when we have a vaccine for 70% of incidents of a certain type of cancer that it is not given out like free candy from every health outlet. (the company who developed the drugs have certified it for use in 9-26 year olds)
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the reason they are focusing it on younger girls is that they are less likely to already have the infection (or is if viral?) which this treats.

    As to the school, well given the usual profile of Catholic schools its massively likely that all the parents will just get it done at the GP instead.

    It is the poor kids who are more likely to get the cancers and less likely to get their jabs outside of the school environment.

    For health concerns like this I dont think the school should be able to refuse, individual parents should have that right but not the school.
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Also worth noting the NHS won't give the vaccine to people under 18 years of age. But you can get it privately. It seems ridiculous when we have a vaccine for 70% of incidents of a certain type of cancer that it is not given out like free candy from every health outlet. (the company who developed the drugs have certified it for use in 9-26 year olds)

    I'm pretty sure that's wrong, and they won't give it to anyone over 18?
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    I think the reason they are focusing it on younger girls is that they are less likely to already have the infection (or is if viral?) which this treats.

    As to the school, well given the usual profile of Catholic schools its massively likely that all the parents will just get it done at the GP instead.

    It is the poor kids who are more likely to get the cancers and less likely to get their jabs outside of the school environment.

    For health concerns like this I dont think the school should be able to refuse, individual parents should have that right but not the school.

    I suspect you're right, the ones who are least likely to need it from the school will get it done at their GP because they have clued up parents who care, the ones from less supportive clued up homes will miss out.
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm pretty sure that's wrong, and they won't give it to anyone over 18?

    Yea that's what I meant, sorry. The govenrment want to give it year 8 girls mainly but if you are between 11 and 18 or something you can go to your GP to get it. But the drug company has certified it for use with girls from 9 years of age to 26 years of age. So especially if you are a 19 - 26 year old virgin you would still be fully protected if you had the vaccine. The reason the government don't want to give it to older girls is because statistically they are more likely to have sex and if you have had sex then statistically you are more likely to already be infected with the human paplova virus which causes cervical cancer and so statistically it is less effective.

    Nevertheless, I think any girl between 9 and 26 should be able to 'opt in' at a GP's surgery, but currently you have to go privately and pay about £350 for the treatment which could one day save your life. 3000 people are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year in the UK, and you can cut that down by 70% off the bat by giving kids this injection. But they don't want to give it to older girls because they might have had sex and already caught the virus. Brown said in his speech the other day that the current government stands for fairness and it does this not for votes or for sound bites but because it is right. Is it right then that when we have an effective preventative treatment for a killer of 1000 women a year that we exclude thousands of eligible girls because they don't fit into the right category. Fair enough only make it compulsory for schoolkids but make it elective for anyone else in the eligible bracket.

    It would be more effective to only give it to girls who have never had sex but that doesn't go down well with the media, so lets just give it to girls of a certain age.
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    It would be more effective to only give it to girls who have never had sex but that doesn't go down well with the media, so lets just give it to girls of a certain age.

    Vaccines are not risk or cost free, the NHS has to select what it pays for and what it doesnt. I'm sure they have made statistical calculations as to when the best age to give this.
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nevertheless, I think any girl between 9 and 26 should be able to 'opt in' at a GP's surgery, but currently you have to go privately and pay about £350 for the treatment which could one day save your life. 3000 people are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year in the UK, and you can cut that down by 70% off the bat by giving kids this injection. But they don't want to give it to older girls because they might have had sex and already caught the virus. Brown said in his speech the other day that the current government stands for fairness and it does this not for votes or for sound bites but because it is right. Is it right then that when we have an effective preventative treatment for a killer of 1000 women a year that we exclude thousands of eligible girls because they don't fit into the right category. Fair enough only make it compulsory for schoolkids but make it elective for anyone else in the eligible bracket.

    I agree! I think anyone under the age of 26 should be able to have it, since even if you've been sexually active you're unlikely to have all the strains of HPV (as I understand it) and so even though it won't be as effective as it is for someone who has never had sex, it could still make a considerable difference in protecting against cervical cancer in percentage terms, which would also save on the cost of treatment to the NHS later on. To get the vaccine privately if you're over 18 and have been sexually active is about £800 which is ludicrous.

    I am also very suspicious of this particular school's motives, given that virtually every other school in the country has accepted that the vaccine is appropriate to be given in school. As has already been said, it is likely to be very restrictive parents who think the vaccination encourages promiscuity who don't get their daughter vaccinated, or parents who are ignorant/not bothered. Either way it is the child that loses out at the end of the day, which is sad.
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    Vaccines are not risk or cost free, the NHS has to select what it pays for and what it doesnt. I'm sure they have made statistical calculations as to when the best age to give this.

    The reason young girls get it vs older girls is because young girls are less likely to already be infected from having sex. Obviously the NHS does have to keep to a budget but they should appeal to the government for extra money as this is the kind of thing that in very real terms saves lives. They are doing a 'mini' catch up so girls up to the age of 18 can opt in but there is no reason statistically or medically why it is less effective for girls up to 26. It all depends how much sex you've had and as firefly says even if you have caught one strain already it could protect you from the other three.

    Vaccinations are the cheapest by far way of treating medical illnesses. To vaccinate one girl the private sector charges £350 (and they're making profit on that) but to treat full blown cancer it costs tens of thousands. Not to mention, what price do you put on the suffering of cancer victims? Investing in vaccinations now saves us money in the future if you want to look at it from an economic perspective, but from a humanitarian point of view we have an opportunity to save lives. Even if we have to borrow the money from China to afford the drugs it would be worth it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Vaccinations are the cheapest by far way of treating medical illnesses. To vaccinate one girl the private sector charges £350 (and they're making profit on that) but to treat full blown cancer it costs tens of thousands. Not to mention, what price do you put on the suffering of cancer victims? Investing in vaccinations now saves us money in the future if you want to look at it from an economic perspective, but from a humanitarian point of view we have an opportunity to save lives. Even if we have to borrow the money from China to afford the drugs it would be worth it.

    I'm somewhat inclined to agree, although actually getting that age group may prove troublesome. Perhaps at universities?

    I presume the government is paying less than £300 a pop, although if you are getting a GP to push it in that does add to the cost.

    I would be happy with it being given out by GP's to those they think it would benefit most. But I suspect that NICE have done a complex loss/cost analysis and balanced out the risks with the potential costs. Which in of itself is a fairly cold and nasty way to look at it but they have to.
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think simply they should make it opt-in able for girls up to 26.
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I want to get it but i'm not 'cost effective' because of my age. I'm just missing out. :(
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »

    Add this to the list of reasons of why faith schools are abhorrent and must be eradicated at all costs.


    No, this is why there is a problem with SOME faith schools, just like there are other issues surrounding comprehensives.
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do faith schools provide any advantages that are exclusive to them?

    Because I fail to see them as anything other than tools for seeding sectarianism, discrimination and prejudice in children. The best that can be said of them is that many offer good performance rates- but then that's by no means exclusive or uncommon.

    And when they step in to undermine vaccination campaigns because of twisted beliefs masquerading as 'concern' for the health of the children, I say they are actively dangerous to those kids unfortunate enough to find themselves as their pupils.

    The sooner we do away with such archaic and counterproductive institutions in our society, the better.
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    And when they step in to undermine vaccination campaigns because of twisted beliefs masquerading as 'concern' for the health of the children, I say they are actively dangerous to those kids unfortunate enough to find themselves as their pupils.

    So you're tarring all faith schools with one brush because one faith school board of governers has said they don't want to offer the vaccine at their school.
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, I was citing this as the latest example of why faith schools should be eradicated. Not all faith schools have similar policies as this one of course, but all faith schools are, by their very existence, promoting division and discrimination. I see no positive aspects of their existence whatsoever- only example after example of why they're a terrible idea with no place in a progressive society.
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Do faith schools provide any advantages that are exclusive to them?

    Because I fail to see them as anything other than tools for seeding sectarianism, discrimination and prejudice in children. The best that can be said of them is that many offer good performance rates- but then that's by no means exclusive or uncommon.

    And when they step in to undermine vaccination campaigns because of twisted beliefs masquerading as 'concern' for the health of the children, I say they are actively dangerous to those kids unfortunate enough to find themselves as their pupils.

    The sooner we do away with such archaic and counterproductive institutions in our society, the better.

    I will remind you yet again, that I who went to a faith based school up until age 16 - knew more about different religions, faiths, cultures and ways of life than my classmates I encountered in my schooling after. This includes university.
    I'd say that my school did an outstanding job in both giving education of a high standard (constantly in the top five nationally) as well as introducing us to ways of life dissimilar to our own.

    And just for the record, its scary to see how you promote universal openness and tolerance, until you encounter an issue with which you disagree. You, in your representation of your beliefs are very inconsistent. Sorry, it has to be said.
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    All I have ever argued about is that children are given the best and most objective education possible.

    Even if a faith-based school is really professional and impartial when it comes to teaching about other faiths and beliefs, the fact remains that it is still an institution that admits or gives preference to children of a certain faith. This cannot have any positive repercussions and helps indoctrinate concepts of divisions and of 'us and them' amongst new generations of children. I can't see what good could possibly come of that.

    Religion is but one of many aspects and traits of a child's formation. That children should be segregated according to their parents religious beliefs is, when you think about it, as absurd as if they were segregated by race, ethnicity or favourite football club. Education is universal and far bigger than any of its individual subjects, and by categorising children by chosen religion we're helping perpetuate conflict and prejudice, even if the schools in question genuinely try to promote tolerance.

    I really don't see the point of them, and have to question the motives of parents to send their children to schools that are based around their religion of choice. I mean, what do maths, English, history or foreign languages got to do with religious beliefs when it comes to education? :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    The best that can be said of them is that many offer good performance rates- but then that's by no means exclusive or uncommon.
    Not really. They have good results because they have better pupils. And they have better pupils because they are able to select their pupils. Indeed, it is quite impossible to run a faith school without the school themselves being able to select pupils (officially on faith, but unofficially, on whatever criterea they want). Consequently, they have a much lower than average percentage of children from low incomes, and a much lower than average percentage of children with special educational needs. The same goes for these new academies. At the other end of the scale, the few muslims schools in the country have much lower than average achievement rates. Again, nothing to do with the religion, and everything to do with the fact that they take a higher than average percentage of low income families. It wasn't surprising when recent news came out about abuses in the admissions system, almost all of the schools involved were either faith schools or academies.

    As for this story, well does anyone genuinely believe that this is about genuine concerns about the safety of the vaccine? Is it buggery. I agree that if a nationwide school vaccination programme is decided upon, only individual parents should have the right to opt out, not individual schools paid for with our money.
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I really don't see the point of them, and have to question the motives of parents to send their children to schools that are based around their religion of choice. I mean, what do maths, English, history or foreign languages got to do with religious beliefs when it comes to education? :confused:

    Consider the idea of stage schools though and you can see that it's just the way they want their kids to be educated either in a religion heavy education or drama heavy education or whatever.
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    All I have ever argued about is that children are given the best and most objective education possible.

    Even if a faith-based school is really professional and impartial when it comes to teaching about other faiths and beliefs, the fact remains that it is still an institution that admits or gives preference to children of a certain faith. This cannot have any positive repercussions and helps indoctrinate concepts of divisions and of 'us and them' amongst new generations of children. I can't see what good could possibly come of that.

    Religion is but one of many aspects and traits of a child's formation. That children should be segregated according to their parents religious beliefs is, when you think about it, as absurd as if they were segregated by race, ethnicity or favourite football club. Education is universal and far bigger than any of its individual subjects, and by categorising children by chosen religion we're helping perpetuate conflict and prejudice, even if the schools in question genuinely try to promote tolerance.

    I really don't see the point of them, and have to question the motives of parents to send their children to schools that are based around their religion of choice. I mean, what do maths, English, history or foreign languages got to do with religious beliefs when it comes to education? :confused:


    i agree you have some good points. it is segregation by definition.
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So is all education, it just depends on what grounds.

    The most common one is class/background.
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So is all education, it just depends on what grounds.

    The most common one is class/background.

    yes schools put students into sets depending on academic ability, this lets everyone learn at there own pace and the other most impoirtant one is age students are in different year groups as they are taking different courses or are at different stages of there gcse's ect. this isnt segregation. it has a purpose. to put all catholics in one school and muslims in another offers no acadamic advantage to either party. you might aswell say blacks, physically disabled, and people with large noses all attend different schools. i think mixing with other cultures is an extremely important part of a childs life and upbringing and is unhealthy for them not to.
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm normally the first to defend religion from aggressive atheists, but I can't support this decision at all. I think it's utterly shameful. The Catholic Church's obsession with stopping people having sex is getting ridiculous. The argument that the cervical cancer vaccine will promote promiscuity is simply a non-starter, and you'd have to be a total retard to believe otherwise.
  • Former MemberFormer Member The Mix Honorary Guru Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    I'm normally the first to defend religion from aggressive atheists, but I can't support this decision at all. I think it's utterly shameful. The Catholic Church's obsession with stopping people having sex is getting ridiculous. The argument that the cervical cancer vaccine will promote promiscuity is simply a non-starter, and you'd have to be a total retard to believe otherwise.

    Can I just point out it's not the decision of the Catholic Church, but that of the board of governors? The Catholic Education Board have said schools should offer it.
Sign In or Register to comment.