Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Intern Dreamin'

So I had my first RUF intern dream. Here's the scenario:

I go to my first RUF at Texas Tech, all the students are at least 10 years older than me. My campus minister says some smart remark about them all needing to impress me. Then we leave to go to some kind of conference, fall, winter, summer, I'm not sure. At conference I see my old campus minister, but only at a distance, I'm never able to get close to him. Then, during a large group meeting Kevin (new intern going to LSU) and I get to talk to a girl about the 5 points, wherein she admits that her new found theology (Calvinism) makes it more about God and less about her. After this I get a phone call from my parents telling me to drive to the nearest airport because I need to come home and have emergency surgery to remove the grapefruit size tumor from my cervix.

Funny dream, huh?

But, the tumor in the cervix thing, I find this ironic. If you have been watching Squawk Box early in the morning this week, or any other news for that matter, or seen the new commercial, you may have seen info about a new vaccine* for an STD that causes cervical cancer. The FDA is about to make some kind of ruling about this new vaccine and there is serious talk in the air about making the vaccine mandatory for all middle school girls. I think this is NOT such a good idea. I think that the implications of making this mandatory speak much louder than anything else. Louder than the inherent implications of a vaccine made to prevent a sexually transmitted disease, which I might add I think because they have found this vaccine they are on the road to finding hundreds of others that prevent hundreds of other STDs. I don't know that this is completely bad, I could give a couple of examples of why it would be good, but I think overall I wouldn't not support this movement. What do you think?

*I was paid to be a ginny pig for the testing of said vaccine and I am very conflicted now.

4 comments:

OneoftheServens said...

You wrote "cervix" several times.

keely said...

Snazzy new look. How'd you do it?

Aubrey said...

As a medical student who will be a doctor in less than a year, I think the HPV vaccine is a good idea. 1. Cervical cancer is the #1 cancer killer for women worldwide. I'm guessing that giving this vaccine to girls here in the US will help prevent cancer here, but also might make it easier for these companies to provide the vaccine cheaply in the developing nations where it is really needed. 2. Even if you are abstinent, and get married, if your spouse ever had sex with anyone else, there is a good chance he/she was exposed to the virus. (75% of all sexually active adults have had it.) Obviously, some people come to Christ during college or after they have already made decisions about sexual activity.
3. I wouldn't want to send the wrong message to teenage girls, either, but cervical cancer is completely preventable, and I think anytime we can do something which is this easy to prevent disease it is probably a good idea. After all, not all women choose when they become sexually active. Rape is too common unfortunately, as is sexual abuse. I guess that is enough of a comment. But those are my thoughts. :)

Della said...

Thanks for the great comment Aubrey. Those are the few but significant reasons I would be in support of such vaccines. Preventing cancer is good; protecting a spouse post marriage is great, pre-marriage and pre-regeneration.... I’m just having trouble.

Of course I would never want anyone to get an STD let alone one that causes cancer, I don't wish that for my non-Christian or sexually active friends, but I also don't want the reasons to not have premarital sex to become less offensive with the removal of inherent consequences. The idea of sharing yourself with more than just your intended groom or bride for whom you are to become one with, may be or should be reason enough for a believer, but there are other consequences that act as deterrents for the unregenerant. One of the reasons I am also pro-life. (Clearly not the only reason)

By supporting the abolition of more and more consequences of engaging promiscuous sex I'm subsequently saying that it’s okay to engage in promiscuous sex.

Does that make sense? Or is that too much of a stretch?