Posted on 09/17/2011 3:24:41 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Candidates who bring the HPV vaccine into the political arena are playing with fire.
You and I are just getting to know one another. While I’ve been writing a twice-weekly opinion column for Wilton Patch for the last year, and readers there are more familiar with where I stand on many things, this “Patch In” column is only in its third week. I thought we’d take it slow.
Earlier this week someone sent me the link to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. It was about GOP presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann’s recent comments about the human papillomavirus (or HPV) vaccine that she made during the recent campaign debates. My friend thought it would make good fodder for a column, and knew I’d be interested in the subject.
I was a little hesitant to write about it in this forum. Heck, it’s still early in our relationship and you’re just getting to know bits and pieces about where I stand on certain issues and what my life philosophies are. And isn’t this issue really more of a national one, since it’s taking place on the presidential campaign stages rather than right here in Fairfield County?
But then I remembered: We have children here in Fairfield County too.
Because, truly, what’s at the heart of the brouhaha, and what’s getting forgotten in favor of presidential politics and soundbites, are children.
Backtracking a little to explain, Rep. Bachmann has gone on the attack against Texas governor Rick Perry for the 2007 move he made in his state issuing an executive order mandating sixth-grade girls receive a vaccine against HPV. Assuming her intent was to characterize Perry’s action as creating legislation without approval from the state’s legislative body, Bachmann fired off this soundbite during the debate:
“To have innocent little 12 year old girls be forced to have a government injection through an executive order is just flat-out wrong.”
After the debate was concluded, she also asserted that HPV vaccines cause “mental retardation.”
I think you and I are going to get to know one another much faster than I first thought.
Political affiliations aside, what’s most concerning to me is how science and health—specifically the health of female children—is now so politicized. Someone has taken a medical issue that’s backed by scientific research and fact, and hijacked it for the purpose of political attack, spin and polling points.
What are the medical facts? According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), HPV causes virtually all cases of cervical cancer and genital warts, in addition to being linked to other kinds of cancers and diseases. While there are multiple strains of HPV, and not all of them directly cause cancer, cervical cancer is still the second leading cancer-killer of women worldwide.
HPV is also the most common sexually transmitted disease today.
A-ha! Is that what makes this issue hot and—pardon the media parlance pun—sexy? Because somehow when the topic of “innocent little 12 year old girls” gets mixed up with protecting them from a virus that gets transmitted through sexual contact, it suddenly gets to be co-opted by politicians on the basis of protecting moral values—and it gets them airtime.
In full disclosure, I grew up in a household that was comfortable talking about science, medicine and fact. My dad is an OBGYN, so we weren’t afraid of using correct anatomical terminology or talking about human sexuality. It’s formed the basis for the way I approach issues like this one.
The science shows that in order for this vaccine to work it needs to be administered before a person becomes sexually active. According to a statement released by the American Academy of Pediatrics following the media uproar after Bachmann’s comments, they “recommend that girls receive [the] HPV vaccine around age 11 or 12. That’s because this is the age at which the vaccine produces the best immune response in the body, and because it’s important to protect girls well before the onset of sexual activity.”
That recommendation was echoed by the CDC and American Academy of Family Physicians.
Please note, it was me who italicized the statement’s words “well before” to emphasize that science isn’t encouraging little girls to start being sexually active earlier. Knowing that’s been the objection for some opposed to this vaccine, I wanted to make the demarcation between science and morality even clearer.
Let's continue with the facts, especially with regard to Bachmann's baseless assertion about the effects of giving the vaccine, and add what the AAP had to say:
"The American Academy of Pediatrics would like to correct false statements made in the Republican presidential campaign that HPV vaccine is dangerous and can cause mental retardation. There is absolutely no scientific validity to this statement. Since the vaccine has been introduced, more than 35 million doses have been administered, and it has an excellent safety record."
Legislation concerning vaccines and immunizations is written at the state level. Currently there are no laws on Connecticut books about anything having to do with HPV—at all. Shortly after it was recommended at the federal level in 2006 that girls aged 11 and 12 receive routine vaccinations, several states—including Connecticut—began debate on it. Nothing has passed our legislatures, however, as of 2007, the last year anything on HPV was brought up for discussion. (The CT Department of Health does have a fact sheet on HPV.)
Health and vaccine policy does get set by government, especially when it protects the lives of the public against epidemics—think chicken pox, measles, and many others. There’s usually nothing compulsory and parents have the right to make an ultimate choice to opt out, as was the case in Texas (although Gov. Perry’s executive order was ultimately overturned by his legislature).
It doesn’t need to be an issue that gets divvied up based on political party. Just look at Virginia, where a state mandate for the HPV vaccine was passed with the support of politicians in both parties. Chris Stolle, a Republican state delegate there told the Huffington Post, "I'm a conservative Republican and I certainly do believe in limited government and limited interference of government into our lives. As we look at the function of government, I would put number one as being to protect its citizens. I think that a vaccination program for a disease that's epidemic falls very clearly within the realms of a small limited government."
What is unfortunately lost in this debate is the opportunity for the politicians to use science to enlighten and protect. The resulting costs from such a fatal disease—impacting families, hospitals, insurers, and society—is a potentially too high a price to pay.
Instead, code words and push-button fear messages get bandied about, furthering the campaign at the expense of some of our youngest citizens, playing political roulette with our daughters’ lives.
Like the plague of AIDS (the US is the only place where it’s spread more by sodomy than other sexual behaviors) its transmission is almost always tied to behavior. I am an old fashioned right-hand-threaded wing nut who believes the dignity of humans to choose or refuse a medication that DOES have documented side effects (however rare) rises above that of dogs or cats.
I know its tied to behavior, like AIDS except HPV much more common and widespread.
I’ve done a graduate course on medical ethics, from an evangelical Christian perspective. Christian medical ethics—based in, very seriously the Hippocratic Oath (yep, the “Do no harm” one that also forbids abortion...), has always made NO distinction in treatment between self inflicted disease and innocent victim disease—as everyone is a sinner and sickness itself results from a fallen world.
Therefore it IS very ethical, and right, to spend money on AIDS research even though—in the USA 95%+ of the victim get it from illicit and usually perverted sex, or illegal drug use. The remaining 5% get it from contact with non-innocent victims. At the same time—is it right—with limited resources to spend money on AIDS research that takes away money from Heart Disease, which affects a LOT more people—and is not related to unethical behavior? No. All this is a matter of judgement though.
As to treatment—everyone should be treated alike, without worrying about how they got a disease. This is how Hippocratic Oath/Christian principles apply to individual doctors treating anyone.
Back to the HPV vaccine—it doesn’t hurt the moral people, and greatly helps the less than moral people (which really...is everyone, speaking from a biblical perspective)—and can give protection from innocent forms of transmission (as rare as those might be...)too, so WHY OPPOSE IT, unless for unscientific, ignorant, “vaccines are an evil plot” reasons?
Your winding up with a strawman after a bunch of liberal “logic” says all that needs to be said.
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.