29 Aug 2006, Comments Off on What colour is my rage? I would say red.

What colour is my rage? I would say red.

Author: Helen

As in, “being in the”, as well as “seeing”, as well as “commie ratbag”, whatever.

What colour is Rage?” asks Pavlov in her post responding to this one from Tigtog.

PC is rightly enraged by the wingnut insistence that vaccinating pubescent girls against cervical cancer is equivalent to sending ’em down to the docks to pick up a few sailors to supplement the family income, and women who get cervical cancer due to being sexually active when young are just askin’ for it.

My rage was focused on the mealy-mouthed, patronising utterances of a Ms Rachel David of the (privatised, naturally) CSL, who was interviewed for this mealy-mouthed and patronising AGE article, with its insistence that Girls (with Parents) with Disposable Income shall be the saved ones:

IF YOU are a woman – or parent of a pre-pubescent girl – with a spare $460, you might like to consider a new way to spend your disposable income…

Gardasil, the most expensive vaccine to hit Australia, was yesterday injected into women and girls for the first time since its approval for use…
Because of its high cost, the vaccine may remain an option only for those with enough disposable income.

Rachel David, spokeswoman for CSL, said the company would “reach out” to women or parents of young girls who may forgo an “iPod, new phone or holiday” for protection against most cervical cancers and genital warts.

Rachel, kindly stuff your iPods and holidays and phones (who spends $460 on a phone? Oh, right, your target constituency) up your friggin’ arse. Your message comes across loud and clear: if you haven’t got disposable income, you’re disposable.

Yeah, if some people in the US are implying that having sex is “asking for” cervical cancer, some people here seem to be implying that having no money is asking for it.

Comments (0)

  • tigtog says:

    Luckily, the bureaucrats aren’t so sanguine as Ms David. It looks like Gardasil will be reviewed for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme by the end of this year, with adoption by the PBS within a year and perhaps school vaccination programmes bundled with the existing rubella vaccination programme by 2008.


  • kate says:

    I’ve found the ‘but it’ll make them have sex argument’ rather wierd in light of the rubella shot, which was always distributed to teenage girls precisely because it’s so dangerous to catch rubella while pregnant. The loonies do have a way of deliberately missing the point – that we’d like them to have the shots young so that it’s well and truly before they have sex.

    They also mistakenly have the idea that teenagers think far enough ahead for something like cervical cancer to even cross the radar. I didn’t know that a virus was linked to cervical cancer, not until I was at least 25, and I didn’t know about pap smears when I was a teenager either. Incidentally, I learned about proper breast examination when I was wagging school and watching day time telly.

  • Helen says:

    Me too, Kate, I read everything I could get my hands on. Interestingly (well maybe, to someone who wasn’t a teenager in the 70s) Cleo magazine was a good source of fairly reliable information. I’m sure they mentioned STDs along the way but there just wasn’t the level of knowledge about it that there is today – and I don’t think HPV was recognised as the insidious danger it is. Maybe it wasn’t as prevalent then? I don’t know.

    Because it took a fair bit of front to go to the local GP and ask for the Pill, there was a fair amount of condom use. As it turns out that wouldn’t have been a bad thing, but then there was zero awareness of the condom as a protection against anything other than pregnancy. At least in my peer group!

  • tigtog says:

    The actual discovery of the HPV-cancer link is fairly recent – late 90s, IIRC.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.