Responses

Download PDFPDF
Government decision on national human papillomavirus vaccine programme is a sad day for sexual health
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    HPV Vaccination: Ethical imperatives and clinical indications for Gardasil

    Dear Editor,

    In supporting Colm O’Mahony’s editorial (1), I would like to amplify Karen Rogstad’s concern (2) about the unwitting creation of a two-tier healthcare system for HPV vaccination and the social discord which will inevitably result from the Government’s decision.

    Any well-informed parent of sufficient means would want to protect their children against genital warts, so their daughters will necessa...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    HPV immunization programme

    Dear Editor,

    When Dr O’Mahony gets round to reading my letter properly he will see that I did not express scepticism about deriving benefit from the addition of HPV types 6 and 11 to types 16 and 18 in the immunization programme. I stated that I know of no evidence that the addition would help in preventing carcinoma of the cervix. Dr O’Mahony might believe that the immunization programme is about HPV immunization...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    HPV vaccine programme- Increasing inequality in adolescent's sexual health?

    Dear Editor,

    O'Mahony's editorial (1) reflects the concern I and others specialising in STIs in young people have about the decision not to vaccinate girls and young women against genital warts types 6 and 11. Others have commented on the biological, psychosocial and cost issues of external genital warts, and I will not re-iterate these (2,3,4). What has been ignored is that at a time when government is trying to red...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    HPV immunisation decision

    Dear Editor,

    I have read the editorial from Dr O’Mahony and the comment from Dr Watson with interest. It may be helpful in this discussion to note that the criteria for selection of an HPV vaccine were spelt out by the Minister Dawn Primarolo on the 2cd of July 2008 in response to a Parliamentary question and is detailed in Hansard http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080702/text/...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Government decision on national human papillomavirus vaccine programme is a sad day for sexual healt

    Dear Editor,

    The points made by Dr O’Mahony in response to the government’s decision to support a bivalent HPV 16/18 prophylactic vaccine in preference to a quadrivalent HPV 6/11/16/18 vaccine are well made and will be appreciated by practitioners managing the wide spectrum of ano-genital HPV disease.1 The British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) has already expressed concerns with respect to the clinica...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Re: HPV immunization programme: not shocked or appalled

    Dear Editor,

    I note Dr Watson wishes to "reserve his judgement" about the Cervarix versus Gardasil decision until he knows the details. Unfortunately he will be reserving his judgment ad infinitum because despite requests from me and others the Department of Health refused to release the details of the decision. They have issued the criteria and it appears to have been a tick boxing exercise where cost was paramoun...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    HPV immunization programme: not shocked or appalled

    Dear Editor,

    I wish to distance myself from Colm O'Mahony's rather hysterical editorial on the selection of Cervarix for the human papillomavirus immunization programme (O'Mahony C. Government decision on national human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV) programme is a sad day for sexual health. Sex Transm Infect 2008;84:251). I do not yet know why Cervarix was selected ahead of Gardasil and until I do I wish to reserve my...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.