Dear Bishop Henry: You Don't Play The Game...

... You Don't Make The Rules.

Via Lifesite, we find that Bishop Henry has once again started writing for the Calgary Sun after a hiatus of nearly four months.

This week's column from the good Bishop is a return to his usual tirades about sexuality.

This week, his target of choice is Gardasil, a vaccine that protects people - especially women - from Human Papillomavirus - which causes cancer - cervical cancer in particular. (Yes there are a few cancers that this can cause in males as well, but the incidence rate of these is extremely low)

The Bishop starts off by decrying the use of Condoms - after all, they aren't effective against everything, ya know:

Did he know that although the correct, consistent use of condoms offers a degree of protection against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) transmitted by fluids, condoms do not prevent the spread of the two most common STDs, human papillomavirus (HPV) and genital herpes? Did he care?

Well, no kidding Bishop. I hate to point this out, but condoms were intended to prevent pregnancy first - its a happy coincidence that a condom happens to be an effective barrier against quite a range of STI's - including HPV, by the way - by a significant 70% reduction.

No, apparently an improvement isn't good enough for the Bishop - he wants it to be 100% effective, or he's going to complain that it's "inadequate".

The Bishop then goes on to whine about the cost of the vaccinations:

Furthermore, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization says females aged 14 to 26 should also be vaccinated against human papillomavirus even if already sexually active because they may not have yet been infected.

Seemingly, the big question now is who will pay? Girls must receive the injection three times for it to be effective totalling a cost of $405 per patient.

Yes, it would be such a waste of money to take preventive measures to ensure that our young women don't get cervical cancer from HPV, after all the ones who do must clearly have been immoral, promiscuous little things, mustn't they? Of course, the Bishop conveniently ignores the fact that MALES can carry HPV too, although usually without health consequences. Which leads me to the obvious point - how many thousands would we save treating cancer patients if we didn't spend that $400 / patient?

Rather than ask "who should pay?" we'd be further ahead to address the primary behaviour that predisposes individuals to sexually acquired infections.

Parents, physicians, educators, and governing bodies should adopt an approach that addresses sexual attitudes and behaviours recommending delayed genital sexual activity and partner reduction.

Oh yes, the oh-so "effective" abstinence programs. You know - the ones that have resulted in an increase in teenage pregnancies and STI transmission rates in the United States - especially in the "bible belt" regions.

Yes, Bishop, it is important to teach our children good moral and ethical behaviour. As parents and adults, we are also equally remiss if we fail to teach our children the realities and facts. Sooner or later, our children leave our nests and become adults in their own right. I'd personally be a lot happier if more of them actually understood their sexuality honestly, and knew enough to ask their physicians to help them protect themselves.

I'll tell you what Bishop - when you figure out a way to cure the cancers that HPV causes, then I'll consider your arguments against Gardasil and contraception in general. In the meantime, I'll take a flawed, but at least somewhat practical approach forward. (One that acknowledges the cold, hard realities of our world)