I'd like to suggest one small edit to Reuters health and science reporter Julie Steenhuysen's otherwise commendable article on young people's misunderstanding of HPV vaccine protection, based on one of her own previous, equally commendable article on HPV vaccine recommendations for boys.

Some adolescent girls adolescents who get the HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer wrongly think they no longer need to practice safe sex, U.S. researchers said on Monday.

The study, published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, shows the need for better education about the vaccines and their limitations.

Merck's Gardasil and GlaxoSmithKline's Cervarix vaccines protect against strains of the humanpapilloma virus or HPV that cause cervical cancer. Gardasil also protects against some strains of the virus that cause genital warts.

But neither vaccine can prevent other forms of sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis, gonorrhea or human immunodeficiency virus or HIV that causes AIDS.

And HPV vaccines can only prevent HPV infections; they do not treat active infections.

Most girls young people who get the vaccine know its limitations, the researchers said, but the vaccines are recommended for all girls young people aged 11 to 12, and overestimating their effect could increase a young woman's person's risk of contracting other sexually transmitted diseases.

Source: Reuters

Given all the hype, and given how recently the vaccine has been recommended for boys it's understandable that people are still thinking mostly in terms of HPV vaccines and girls. But the fact remains that boys as well as girls are at risk of HPV-related cancers (it's linked to penile, throat, and rectal cancer, for instance.) And it further remains the fact that (statistically speaking) by definition boys are as likely to receive HPV and other STIs from girls as girls are likely to receive them from boys. That's sort of how heterosexual disease transmission works.

Finally, call me a rebel here but while I understand the researchers surveyed only adolescent girls and so it would have been inappropriate for them to extrapolate... it's a safe bet that a comparable survey of adolescent boys would find they're at least as likely to make the same mistake.

So if it was me, while composing educational outreach materials on the matter I'd drop the adolescent boys or adolescent girls language and just make sure I was trying to reach adolescents, period.

Photo by figleaf (hey, that's me!). Posted under a Creative Commons license.

So the other day I gave blood, as I try to do regularly because even if I'll never end up needing blood or blood products to save my life other people frequently do.

And since I've been donating blood for a very long time I've noticed over time how the screening questions have evolved. Mostly by getting a lot longer and a lot more detailed.

And over time reading through the checklist gets to be a bit like reading the rings on an old tree or looking at stamps on an old steamer trunk or passport. This question about sharing needles reminds us, of course, of the HIV epidemic. That question about living in England or Europe since the 1980s reminds us of Mad Cow disease. Another about immigrating or having lived in Southeast Asia is an obscure clue about residual risk of Hansen's disease (a.k.a. leprosy.)

Other clues remind us of what we've learned over time about previously well-known illnesses and, sometimes, indicates tremendous advances in medical technology over the years. Transplantation of dura matter? We weren't always able to transplant brain tissue. That's kind of cool even if it too brings with it a possible risk to subsequent blood recipients of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

And then, sometimes, there are indicators of risk that the deliverers of blood and blood products have to worry about that don't really make it into the rest of society. Even though it's kind of important.

So that's why I wanted to call out a question that showed up relatively recently in the "in the last 12 months have you..." section of the questionaire: have you "Been in juvenile detention, lockup, jail, or prison for more than 72 hours?"

Gee, I wonder why that would be in there?

I really wonder what could happen to someone in less than three days in jail, lockup, or juvenile detention that might put them at risk for donating blood?

I gave $100 to Planned Parenthood today.

Even though in general when I give to reproductive-health organizations I give to smaller, local ones that have neither the visibility, the clout, or the fundraising capabilities Planned Parenthood does.

But today, these days, now, that visibility, clout, and capability is precisely what's painted the right wing target "surveyor's symbol" on Planned Parenthood's back.

To paraphrase the silly Grateful Dead bumper sticker from the 1970s, Planned Parenthood may not always be the best at what they do, but in a lot of places they're the only ones doing it.

If I had $10,000 I'd have given them that instead.

If you've got something to give this year might be a good time to do that.

• If you wish you can donate to their political action fund here.
• Or you may choose to donate to their (tax free if that's important to you) operating fund here.

Ever notice how sometimes the deeper one digs the more interesting some news tidbits become?

In a news-roundup post, Beth Saunders of RHRealityCheck.org passes along with insufficient comment a tidbit from an anti-choice website that...

Twenty percent of British women used emergency contraception in the past year, according to a survey by the Co-Operative Pharmacy.

Source: RHRealityCheck.org

If you go to the site itself (LifeSiteNews) you get a little more background... but obviously you also get more anti-choice slant (emphasis mine)

A Co-Operative Pharmacy survey of 3000 people found that 20 percent of women aged 18 to 35 took the “emergency contraceptive” pill last year. The same group said they had typically used the drug, which only acts as a genuine contraceptive in some cases, when they had had sex after using drugs and/or alcohol.

The poll further found that up to 250,000 women had used the drug two or more times during the year. One in fifty 18-21 year-olds said they used the MAP as their normal form of contraception. One sixth of the women surveyed said they had contracted a sexually transmitted disease.

Source: LifeSiteNews

And if you go to the actual Co-Operative Pharmacy press release you get the same core information minus (shock, gasp, surprise!) mention of "only acts as a genuine contraceptive in some cases."  Which is good because, of course, that would be factually incorrect.  Here's the straight story from the source.

Thousands of women risk waking up on New Years Day with more than a hangover as over one in five blame partying with drink or drugs for not using contraception with a new partner, figures* reveal today (1 January 2011).

The Co-operative Pharmacy, part of The Co-operative Group, questioned 3,000 people about contraception and found that one in five women aged 18 to 35 years old have used the morning after pill in the last 12 months. One in six women admitted to having had a sexual disease.

The research also revealed that the preferred method of contraception for almost half of all women was the pill and two out of five favoured condoms. 250,000** women have used the emergency contraceptive three times or more and more than one in 50 of those aged 18 to 21 said they preferred to use the morning after pill as a regular form of contraception.

Source Co-Operative Pharmacy

I don't feel qualified to comment on on-the-ground experiences (feel free to chime if you know otherwise) but it sounds like most pharmacists don't agree that EC is all that great on one's system.  From the Co-Operative press release:

Mandeep Mudhar, Head of NHS Development at The Co-operative Pharmacy, said: “Our research shows that some women are taking unnecessary risks with their health. The morning after pill should be a last resort to prevent an unwanted pregnancy after having unprotected sex or if another method of contraception has failed, such as if you have forgotten to take one of your contraceptive pills.

“However, the emergency contraceptive pill does not protect against sexually transmitted infections. Pharmacists provide free accessible advice about contraception but we would always urge people to use a condom, particularly with a new partner, as it offers the greatest protection.”

That sounds about right.  I'd just add, though, that the key word above would be "particularly with a new partner."

Few young single people have "Jersey Shore" style lifestyles where they're prepared at every moment to be ready to fall into bed with someone new.  Instead, most young single people, women as much as men, tend to go through sexual "boom and bust" relationships.  And for people for whom hormonal contraception is an option (obviously only women so far, darn it) it often doesn't feel worth the hassle and often the discomfort of staying on a medication you may expect to need only a few times a year.

To that extent that most women who report using emergency contraception as their "primary contraceptive" are almost all still using it only once a year we're not necessarily talking about a giant epidemic of "irresponsibility" here.  Nor, I would add, does that suggest epidemics of "promiscuity" either.  Unless by promiscuity you mean "once last year."

The EC/STI connection is a little more problematic.  First of the STI question seems to have been about lifetime experience with STIs whereas the rest of the survey reports about annual experience with contraception.  I mention this only to tidy up the numbers, not to minimize the actual risk.  Second, by focusing on the EC angle the story almost necessarily underplays the story of very large numbers of people using no protection for first-time sex.

Proposal: I know it sounds counterintuitive but I think it occurs to  me it might be a very good idea to encourage manufacturers and/or pharmacists to include a condom in every package of EC.  It's counterintuitive because one tends to view EC as something you take after the fact.  And indeed it is.

EC is not, however, always purchased after the fact.  I expect it's a lot easier to remember that if you've already Backed Up Your Birth Control it might be easier to remember you've also got at least one backup condom.  And even if not?  Well, you've still got a condom for next time.  Even if, as those survey numbers suggest, next time also happens to be next year.  And one way or other, knowing there's a condom in the box "puts the idea into consciousness" as the new-agers say.

Extra credit if the condoms have the retro-20th-Century "for prevention of disease only" motif!