Two more editorials in support of HPV vaccine

Yesterday, The Oregonian published an editorial in support of HPV vaccines titled "Choosing women's health over sexual politics." The piece attempts to draw parallels between Gardasil's imminent licensure with the still-undecided fate of the emergency contraception Plan B...

"[The] decision to value sexual politics over women's health has damaged the reputation of this federal agency. More important, it has needlessly hurt women and their families. Next month, the FDA has a chance to mend some of the damage by approving a new vaccine against a sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

The idea of vaccinating young girls against a sexually transmitted disease causes discomfort among some of the same groups that oppose contraception. But the chance to prevent cancer is too powerful and extraordinary to deny."

Last week, the Palm Beach Post took a similar approach in this editorial, "Save lives, not ideology," which may have left some readers with the incorrect assumption that Gardasil was in danger of suffering the same fate as Plan B. It should be noted that there's no evidence suggesting such a move is at all likely.

While the editorial strongly supports the vaccine, the Post seems to miss the key point of contention about the vaccine's use. Without qualification or explanation, they write, "Parents, of course, should decide" about whether to vaccinate their children, despite that issue being the almost-certain focus of attention for months to come as state policies are developed.