Posted on 01/20/2007 12:54:51 PM PST by wagglebee
Let's walk through a medical minefield together.
Merck & Co., a major drug manufacturer, has developed a vaccine called Gardasil that protects against some forms of the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus. Another pharmaceutical company is nearly ready to market something similar.
Good.
Experts claim HPV vaccines can protect women against cervical cancer.
Terrific.
For the vaccine to work, it should be administered before a woman becomes sexually active.
Logical.
So, health professionals recommend that girls as young as 11 receive the shots.
Troubling.
There's only one conclusion to be drawn by this tender age limit: more than a few girls are having sex at 12.
These waifs don't need a vaccine. They need morals. And parents to tell them not to have sex in middle school, lest they catch a nasty disease. Like genital warts, which are not prevented by the shots.
Then again, who needs parents when you have state government?
Enter Del. Phillip Hamilton of Newport News. He's introduced HB2035, which would add the HPV vaccine to the list of inoculations girls will need to enter sixth grade in the fall of 2008. You read that correctly. Sixth grade.
This isn't just a single shot. It's a series of three. The cost is about $360, and according to news reports, some health insurance companies don't cover it.
Not to worry. On Friday, Hamilton told me that once the vaccine is mandatory, chances are insurance companies will pay.
Hang on to your wallets, folks. This is going to cost us.
"If it becomes mandatory, the health department has to offer it for free," Hamilton acknowledged.
Of course, taxpayers fund the health departments, so we'll get to pay - twice. Once in our insurance premiums and again in our taxes.
The price for this medical munificence? When I spoke to him, Hamilton didn't have the data.
The delegate does know he's against cancer, though. Hamilton told me that if drug companies develop vaccines against other cancers - prostate or colon, for instance - he'd support making those immunizations mandatory, too.
The justification for all this government meddling in our immune systems requires a leap of logic that Hamilton has made: You must equate the danger of HPV with devastating diseases such as polio.
Sorry, delegate. There's no comparison. HPV can be controlled by behavior. Behavior that shouldn't be going on in middle school.
Parents who think it's a good idea to vaccinate their little girls against sexually transmitted diseases can do it. No need for a mandate.
You may wonder why Hamilton introduced this measure.
Is he responding to parental demand? Is he doing this because pediatricians think it's a swell idea?
Nope. In fact, The Pilot reported that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends the vaccine but isn't yet asking states to make it mandatory.
According to news reports, Hamilton, chairman of the House Committee on Health, Welfare and Institutions, introduced this bill at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry.
Let's at least be honest and call this the Merck Mandate. How many votes would that get?
It's troubling because it is based on the assumption that all 11-year old girls will soon be promiscuous and that, therefore, they must be vaccinated against this STD. It is also troubling because giving girls this vaccine is tacitly giving them permission to engage in immoral behavior.
Yes they do need a vaccine, and they don't need someone to advocate that they get cancer. Who the hell died and made this guy the one who passes judgment on the morals of 12 year olds?
Some people just really p**s me off.
The key phrase in this quote is "may help guard." It does not say that Gardisil "will prevent" diseases caused by HPV. This is hardling a ringing endorsement of this drug's effectiveness.
There is a test for HPV, both the low-risk strains and the high-risk strains. Most women who receive an abnormal pap smear reading are referred for this test. I believe it is a blood test.
All this pontificating never takes into account that this children can be sexually assaulted or molested, and possibly get a disease that will scar them and put them at risk of cancer for the rest of their lives.
Trying to make this an either / or argument is stupid. There is a vaccine that can prevent suffering and is insurance against the unknown. That is how it should be viewed.
Vaccination should only be required for a casually transmissable disease. The transmission of HPV should not be a possibility in any decently run school.
Mrs VS
Sounds like it can be tested for in males with a blood test.
Why is this not required for the blood tests for marriage?
Seems logical if it could be tested for, both should know.
Sorry, that's not the right conclusion. The doctors are looking at the issue with dry amoral scientific detachment. The doctors understand that the potential for sexual behavior occurs with the onset of puberty. The vaccine has to be taken before a girl is sexually active. Therefore, the vaccine needs to be taken before the onset of puberty.
The doctors are not making a value judgement. They're making a risk assessment. If the vaccine is worthless after exposure to HPV, then the best time to give the vaccine would be before any chance of sexual activity. If there is the slightest risk that the girl is already sexually active, the vaccine is useless. So the doctors have selected a moment with the least amount of risk.
You're right when you see that there is no moral value at all attached to the decision. It's strictly a rational decision made to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer. That doesn't negate the value or the need for morals; it just means that the doctor's job is to prevent and cure disease. The transmission of morals is the job of other institutions in our society - parents, family, churches.
These waifs don't need a vaccine. They need morals. And parents to tell them not to have sex in middle school, lest they catch a nasty disease. Like genital warts, which are not prevented by the shots.
We all need a moral foundation, preferably based on sound religious principles. Given a choice, I prefer both the vaccine and the moral foundation.
Imagine being an 11-year-old girl and going into a doctor's office to get a series of shots. The doctor and your parents tell you that there is a sexually transmitted disease that can cause cancer and kill you, but this shot will prevent that. I would think that most girls would focus on the other dangers presented by sexual activity, not see those shots as an invitation to fornicate.
However, I wouldn't want to look at my dying daughter and tell her that I chose not to give her the vaccine when she was young because I thought she'd be a slutty seventh grader. That would be more pain that I think I could bear.
No body is saying dont get the shots..just who should pay and if its your kid then you should pay..see how that works?
And that it's not little virgin boys that transmit them.
well take her to the doc and YOU pay for the shots..easy as pie and if you dont think docs are getting paid by the drug companies then you should not have kids anyway
Whatever! The notion that anyone would be against girls getting a vaccine that could prevent the scourge of cancer, is insane IMO.
"...well take her to the doc and YOU pay for the shots..easy as pie and if you dont think docs are getting paid by the drug companies then you should not have kids anyway..."
I'm all in favor of personal responsibility for medical care. I would recommend using punctuation and your spell check, though.
My daughter would most likely get this if I choose and see the use but to order others to pay for what my child needs is silly..
If you want your child to have it then do it and my daughter will most likely get it if and when the time comes as part of her health but to sit back and want others to do my job is stupid ...thats all the article is saying but some on here want to tie em down and try that then fine but it wont work and some on here wanna be chicken littles and yell ooooooooooh the children ooooh the children..all that is needed is common sense..
I don't understand why it is not also recommended that boys get the shots. If you vaccinated both sexes, it seems to me you'd have a better chance of getting rid of (or at least greatly reducing) this disease in a generation or two.
I'm a traditional social conservative, but they are the biggest part of what is driving the libertarian leaning conservatives to the Democrat
In what world is this? Libertarian leaning conservatives becoming democrats? I truly doubt any libertarian is becoming democrats...like keeping your virginty by becoming a hooker
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.