Opinion

Douglas’ battle with TMI: Spreading awareness?

The Issue: Michael Douglas’ admission that his throat cancer may have been caused by HPV, a common STD.

***

It may not be pleasant, but don’t kill the messenger (“Zeta, Dump the Big-Mouth Lickety-Split!” Andrea Peyser, June 4).

Peyser should educate herself on sexually transmitted Human Papillomavirus and the cancer link, and be big enough to admit her tough-girl rant is written completely out of fear and ignorance.

I commend Michael Douglas for having the courage and dignity to open a subject that, just like epilepsy, breast and prostate cancer, AIDS and addiction, all have had a face that enabled education, prevention, testing and research to be increased.

Don’t we remember Ryan White, Betty Ford, Elizabeth Taylor and, most recently, Angelina Jolie, who all put their privacy aside to find a better way?

To maliciously use the pen to senselessly indict Zeta-Jones is just plain toxic. The time between the virus’ transmission and symptomatic presentation is unclear. For example, the AIDS virus can lie dormant for up to 10 years or longer.

Suzanne Stonbely

Manhattan

Peyser claims that she is concerned for the embarrassment to Douglas’ wife and children from his public pronouncement.

She insists that her concern is that she hates to see children grow up in broken homes. If so, why on earth would she tell Catherine Zeta-Jones to leave her husband?

Does Peyser really know what’s better for the Douglas-Jones family than those within it? Has she really served the values that she purports to champion?

If Peyser is so concerned about broken homes and families, perhaps she should call out her own newspaper for unnecessarily embarrassing women and children of men who were caught in the Long Island prostitution sting.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Meyer Muschel

Manhattan

The article on Douglas is a red flag for parents: It is another push of the US Health and Human Services Department and Merck’s efforts to make Gardasil a mandatory vaccine, therefore taking away a parent’s right to decide on their children’s health.

Since the vaccine’s debut about a decade ago, they have been prepping the American public for this move. First, pushing it as a mother’s chance to save their young daughters from a hideous disease later on.

Then, as the vaccine’s potential side effects were seen, parents were not always willing to risk their daughters’ health for the “possibility” of disease. They’ve now found a spokesperson to push the panic that many cancers are caused by these viruses.

I’m not saying that the vaccine doesn’t work to a point, but as American parents, it is our choice whether we want to risk our own child’s health for a disease that the individual has to actively do something to contract. Christine Fennes

West Hempstead