4 ms·

It's not often brought up, but there's several cancers caused by HPV that also affect men, like oral and penile cancer. I've long thought that the vaccine shoul

It's not often brought up, but there's several cancers caused by HPV that also affect men, like oral and penile cancer. I've long thought that the vaccine shouldn't just be marketed towards women.

tialaramex 3y ago
It isn't. Does the US not vaccinate boys? Most advanced countries began routinely vaccinating boys in the same cohort as girls. In the UK certainly "Men who have sex with Men" is the next most significant group targeted for vaccination, up to age 45. The reason this didn't happen from the outset is that you can't vaccinate the boys to protect girls because that's not a direct benefit to the patient, the early data was specifically for cervical cancer and if you don't have a cervix that isn't a benefit.
- anderber 3y ago
  Europe vaccinated boys way before in the US. When I tried to get the vaccine back in college, I was denied. I argued that in Europe they were vaccinating boys, but to no avail. In other words, at the time they knew the direct benefits for boys, but that wasn't a concern because girls had a higher rate of cancer from HPV. So they were prioritized.
- adamredwoods 3y ago
  They vaccinate boys. Our doctor recommended it, but I suspect it largely depends on the doctor.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  > can't vaccinate the boys to protect girls because that's not a direct benefit Medical ethics doesn't allow a procedure which is good for society, but doesn't directly benefit the patient. However, I think that is wrong. Elsewhere in society we frequently do that - for example we put people into prison, which is of very little benefit to the prisoner. We stand up to let an old person take a seat on a train, which is of no benefit to the person standing up. We send bailiffs, which is of little benefit to the debtor. We pay taxes, which is of little direct benefit to the taxpayer. Why does the medical world have a stricter ethical standard when there are clearly benefits to society that cannot be realised because of the different approach?
  - almatabata 3y ago
    None of the examples you cite require the person to take something into their body that they do not want. You need an example where we effectively force people to ingest something or make a modification to their body without their explicit consent. While searching i found that this could apply to people in psychiatric wards to force them to take their medication (https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/drugs-and-treatments/medication/your-right-to-refuse-medication/ https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/drugs-and-treatm...).
    - londons_explore 3y ago
      Consent is a separate issue. Medical ethics make it unethical to do something good for society but with no benefit to the patient, even with the consent of the patient. Note that there are a few cases where these medical ethics are violated for historic reasons. For example, donating a kidney (no benefit to the donor). Another example: Taking a vaccine for an almost eradicated disease (at that point, you are taking the vaccine for the social purpose of eradicating the disease, not for the personal benefit of not contracting the disease). These things are grandfathered into medical ethics, but would no longer be allowed if proposed today.
31carmichael 3y ago
I'm a man and got the HPV vaccine in another country. USA is very strange in this regard. Last summer, 4 out of 4 pharmacies refused to provide me a shingles vaccine, even if I paid them cash and had a doctor's prescription. They said that they would get into trouble. I am 49 years old. Had I been 50, any pharmacy would provide the vaccine. This is simply retarded.

It's not often brought up, but there's several cancers caused by HPV that also affect men, like oral and penile cancer. I've long thought that the vaccine shouldn't just be marketed towards women.

tialaramex 3y ago

It isn't. Does the US not vaccinate boys? Most advanced countries began routinely vaccinating boys in the same cohort as girls. In the UK certainly "Men who have sex with Men" is the next most significant group targeted for vaccination, up to age 45. The reason this didn't happen from the outset is that you can't vaccinate the boys to protect girls because that's not a direct benefit to the patient, the early data was specifically for cervical cancer and if you don't have a cervix that isn't a benefit.

anderber 3y ago
Europe vaccinated boys way before in the US. When I tried to get the vaccine back in college, I was denied. I argued that in Europe they were vaccinating boys, but to no avail. In other words, at the time they knew the direct benefits for boys, but that wasn't a concern because girls had a higher rate of cancer from HPV. So they were prioritized.
adamredwoods 3y ago
They vaccinate boys. Our doctor recommended it, but I suspect it largely depends on the doctor.
londons_explore 3y ago
> can't vaccinate the boys to protect girls because that's not a direct benefit Medical ethics doesn't allow a procedure which is good for society, but doesn't directly benefit the patient. However, I think that is wrong. Elsewhere in society we frequently do that - for example we put people into prison, which is of very little benefit to the prisoner. We stand up to let an old person take a seat on a train, which is of no benefit to the person standing up. We send bailiffs, which is of little benefit to the debtor. We pay taxes, which is of little direct benefit to the taxpayer. Why does the medical world have a stricter ethical standard when there are clearly benefits to society that cannot be realised because of the different approach?
- almatabata 3y ago
  None of the examples you cite require the person to take something into their body that they do not want. You need an example where we effectively force people to ingest something or make a modification to their body without their explicit consent. While searching i found that this could apply to people in psychiatric wards to force them to take their medication (https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/drugs-and-treatments/medication/your-right-to-refuse-medication/ https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/drugs-and-treatm...).
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    Consent is a separate issue. Medical ethics make it unethical to do something good for society but with no benefit to the patient, even with the consent of the patient. Note that there are a few cases where these medical ethics are violated for historic reasons. For example, donating a kidney (no benefit to the donor). Another example: Taking a vaccine for an almost eradicated disease (at that point, you are taking the vaccine for the social purpose of eradicating the disease, not for the personal benefit of not contracting the disease). These things are grandfathered into medical ethics, but would no longer be allowed if proposed today.

31carmichael 3y ago

I'm a man and got the HPV vaccine in another country. USA is very strange in this regard. Last summer, 4 out of 4 pharmacies refused to provide me a shingles vaccine, even if I paid them cash and had a doctor's prescription. They said that they would get into trouble. I am 49 years old. Had I been 50, any pharmacy would provide the vaccine. This is simply retarded.