"Informed consent gives patients and childrens the right to refuse.
We will not tolerate for one second any such informed consent in Texas.
Our stock in Merck is at risk if the children or their parents dare to refuse."
Posted on 02/09/2007 11:44:19 AM PST by Froufrou
"Informed consent gives patients and childrens the right to refuse.
We will not tolerate for one second any such informed consent in Texas.
Our stock in Merck is at risk if the children or their parents dare to refuse."
I don't know the specifics of this virus, but in general, I'm for protecting children with vaccines (if they are generally safe). Why? I hate to see a child die because of a parent's fringe religious beliefs. Centuries ago, there were people who refused their child medical treatment, because they believed a particular illness was a gift from God, and that humans had no right to interfere. That was wrong, this is wrong.
Now, if there is genuine concern about safety and side-effects, I support the parents.
Oh please. It's an almost totally benign "infection". A teeny percentage *might* get cancer decades down the road. Big deal. You're forgetting that the whole point of mandatory vaccinations for school kids is so that kids can go to school without catching deadly diseases while there. Nobody catches HPV in the classroom.
No. But they can spread it, possibly to girls who haven't been vaccinated for medical reasons or religious reasons, giving them HPV. It's not about being politically correct, it's about public safety, especially since HPV can give boys cancer, just not cervical cancer for obvious reasons. It doesn't make sense to say you're for protecting against something and then not vaccinating people who can and will spread it. That is, it would be if this was a public safety issue, but since there are other more dangerous things that they aren't focusing on, I doubt it's that.
If the vaccine was safe, reliable, and actually was proven to prevent cervical cancer, that'd be one thing. But it's untested, doesn't prevent cervical cancer entirely, and it isn't punishing someone for having sex if they chose not to get the vaccine. That's like saying that not forcing people to wear condoms is punishing people for having sex by letting them risk STDs. It's each person's choice, not the government's duty to shove its nose in and save people from themselves, or else they should outlaw cigarettes and save smokers and their loved ones from lung cancer.
Whatever your stance on this issue, it's sexual at its very core.
There IS genuine concern over the safety. Those are my reasons. I don't agree with a parent refusing a vaccine that's clearly safe on religious grounds, but I respect that parent's right to raise his or her own children.
This vaccine hasn't been tested on children under 16. It's caused seizures, allergic reactions, and possibly two cases of a sometimes deadly syndrome. There have been absolutely no long term studies on this, so there's no telling if the vaccine will even last for more than 5 years or if it will give people problems later in life, like other vaccines have in the past.
It hasn't been tested extensively enough to safely make it mandatory.
If so, then why is everyone fixated on the allegedly sexual nature of this vaccine? It appears that some people are more concerned that teenagers will not get cancer from having sex, than about the supposed safety concerns.
The political correctness of this nonsense is just unbelievable. Why should boys get vaccinated? They are not the ones getting cancer because of this. Furthermore, think of this in economic terms. A boy has less incentive to take a vaccine, because (almost) nothing can happen to him anyway. Then, girls might get hurt. Very politically correct, but idiotic (no disrespect).
-----
Your argument is ridiculous. If this is the public health crisis you tout it is, then boys who can be carriers and infect girls should also be vaccinated, so that they do not spread the virus. It takes two to spread a sexually transmitted disease. And your incentive argument is illogical. What incentive is there for children to have the Hep A vaccine if they are not in a place where Hep A is spread? Perhaps, since there is no incentive, Hep A vaccine should not be mandatory.
see my post #90 - what's the difference in incentive?
Penile cancer? How obscure. I've never heard of it.
And someone else was claiming that it was dangerous to get the vaccine if you were infected by HPV. Since boys are the ones who have the virus in the first place, would that not be dangerous?
Clash over Perry's vaccine order heats up
Many of those opposing the vaccine requirement are social conservatives who fear it sends a message to teens that sex is permissible. But the Texas Medical Association also opposes the mandate, citing the vaccine's newness, liability concerns and cost.
--------
The Texas MEDICAL Association is against this?
Hot dog!
That's not true. The majority of threads I've read on FR are critisizing the fact that it hasn't been tested enough. The media is focusing on the religious concerns, but most people who oppose this aren't doing it on the sexual implications as much as they are the dangers of untested vaccines. Even the person you responded to talks about health concerns, in this thread. The OP does, too.
The nature of this vaccine IS sexual. But that's not where the majority of concern lies, though it is a big point. If the government can't push birth control on people, it shouldn't be able to push an anti-STD vaccine on people, though it does. Look at Hepatitis B. I'm still convinced that's why Merck is calling this anti-cancer, though it's not really a vaccine against cancer. There was so much of an outlash against the Hep. B vaccine, they probably don't want to go through it with this one. But that's what this is, another anti-STD vaccine. It's sexual in nature. It's emotional language to say, "You want girls to have cancer as punishment for sex," not logical language, by the way. It's making an assumption that paints someone who disagrees in a negative light. It happens all the time on FR, but it doesn't make it right.
It's not idiotic to be against this vaccine. It's concern for your children, either because you think there's not enough known about this vaccine yet, or because you think it's putting your children at sexual risk by misrepresenting the benefits of this to children. Most people I talk to don't realize how little protection this vaccine really gives, and think it's 100% effective against cervical cancer and HPV. It's a dangerous assumption and dangerous misrepresentation.
Not true at all. There's lots about this issue to care about. I care about payoffs to politicians by companies to have them force me to buy the company's product.
I care about any vaccine that isn't necessary and has been tested so little.
I care about being the guinea pig for any vaccine that so little known about and knowledge of the long term consequences is simply nonexistent.
If politicians are truly so worried about cervical cancer, the most effective way to combat it would be by making Pap Smears mandatory for all women. That way they'd catch cervical cancer no matter what its cause.
My children are not going to be any body's guinea pigs or cash cows.
I said that. It comes from the CDC, or FDA, I forget which.
And boys aren't the only ones who spread it, but they do spread it.
You also just said you'd never heard of HPV until recently...so isn't that obscure enough so this vaccine shouldn't be mandatory in the first place?
Tell people who have gotten penile cancer from HPV that they shouldn't have the same protection girls have because well, you haven't heard of penile cancer until now.
Keep telling yourself that because nobody else with any credibility will.
Moreover, Gardasil confers long term (and most likely lifetime) immunity.
Nobody knows that for sure because it hasn't been tested that long, so you're making some pretty groundless speculations there.
The flu vaccine has to be re-administered, at great effort and at great expense, annually.
Which happens anyway. And besides, to make it mandatory, they have to have enough of a supply and I don't ever recall that being the situation.
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.