Being Amber Rhea

Good news today:

A federal advisory panel Thursday unanimously recommended that the Food and Drug Administration approve a vaccine that has been shown to prevent cervical cancer, the second most prevalent cancer among women worldwide.

(LA Times via Blog for Democracy)

Well, thank [your preferred deity] that sanity appears to be prevailing. We’ll know for sure in a few weeks, when the FDA makes its decision. The LA Times says, “The FDA almost always follows the recommendations of its advisory panels” - which means if they don’t in this case (as with the Plan B OTC recommendation) we’ll know the reasoning is wholly political. I’d like to think the FDA won’t capitulate to whacko fundies who think an HPV vaccine will cause spontaneous orgies in high schools around the country.

Frankly, if we could prevent one of the leading causes of death in women, I’d be alright with spontaneous orgies. But I digress.

This is excellent news, of course. But figleaf makes a very good point - and this is something that I think needs to be addressed much more than it currently is (which is to say, only on figleaf’s blog). Does labeling HPV as a “sexually transmitted disease” do more harm than good?

Contrary to those who put their political agenda over science by tying it closely to sex, HPV can and often is transmitted nonsexually. HPV…is very contagious. For instance it can be passed from individual to individual, from hand to hand, in a corner store and then passed by the individual, from hand to genitals, in the bathroom. In other words while it *CAN* be transmitted sexually, it’s by no means transmitted *EXCLUSIVELY* through sexual contact.

So what message, exactly, are radicals in and out of the FDA communicating with their censorious attitudes towards an HPV vaccine? I can think of one: if you wind up with HPV you are unclean. And if you’re an upstanding member of your community there are consequences if word gets out that you’re unclean.

This ties in with someone he wrote a few months ago (I can’t find the link now), about reappropriating the “S” in “STD” to mean socially rather than sexually. I can get behind that whole-heartedly.

Now, before anyone goes off half-cocked, don’t think I’m advocating drawing no distinction between, say, the common cold and gonorrhea. (Both are highly contagious and spread through contact, so they’re both “socially transmitted diseases,” right?) Obviously everyone should be educated about the risks associated with sexual activity, and those risks include the possibility of contracting a number of STIs.* But why the need to lump STIs into a dirty little corner, a very specific, confining box of their own, separate and somehow “worse” than other diseases/infections/conditions?

Unfortunately, there is still a stigma against STIs in many people’s minds. This stigma can prevent people from seeking treatment, to the detriment of themselves and their partners; just like how a stigma against mental illness can prevent people from seeking treatment (although I like to think we’ve advanced past that as a society, on the whole). The term “STI” or “STD” is, to many people’s ears, infused with judgement. And it serves no purpose. Who benefits from making a person with an illness feel ashamed, guilty, or dirty because of that illness? On the other hand, who benefits if people feel free of judgement and therefore take preventative measures, and seek treatment when necessary?

* Ed. note: I prefer to use “STI” instead of “STD” because that’s what I’ve observed the medical and sex ed communities using. I don’t know why they changed it from “disease” to “infection,” but I suspect it has something to do w/ wanting to ease a little of the stigma. Does anyone know for sure?