Posted on 09/18/2011 6:31:18 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Cancer treatment has made great progress in recent decades, but the tragedy is that so much of our effort to combat this scourge is just that: treatment. Once a disease appears, there is only so much that can be done. It would be far cheaper, more effective and less traumatic to prevent it.
A vaccine for cancer would be a triumph for public health. Did I say “would be”? Actually, it is. Such a vaccine exists for one of the biggest killers of women. But Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., is against it, and she’s not alone.
Two different vaccines block transmission of the human papillomavirus (HPV), which causes 70 percent of all cervical cancer in this country, as well as most anal cancers and some cancers of the throat, vagina and penis.
Each year, says the National Cancer Institute, more than 12,000 American women are diagnosed with cervical cancer alone, and some 4,000 will die of it. That’s not counting the genital warts HPV can cause.
It’s a nasty but very common bug that the world would be better off without. Universal inoculation would be a huge step toward eradicating it and the suffering it causes.
But there is a big impediment to its use: HPV is sexually transmitted, which makes the vaccine controversial — especially because to achieve maximum effectiveness, it has to be administered before the recipient becomes sexually active. And in this country, 6 percent of youngsters have sex by the age of 13.
It’s a helpful argument for supporters of one candidate, to say there are only TWO conservatives, one of whom is no longer a serious contender (in part because a month ago, they were trashing her for all her “missteps” like hiring Ed Rollins, and for her staff attacking their candidate.
They often argue Herman Cain is also conservative, as he also has the characteristic of being highly unlikely to win the nomination.
I happen to think all three are conservative, but that Rick Perry (OTIssuesRating: HARD-CORE CONSERVATIVE) is a conservative.
I agree with you on the personal attacks on Bachman. I dislike personal attacks on our candidates, I think we could stick to the issues.
I interested in where you draw the line for government interference in the decisions of parents for their children. Think about the following, as to whether you support government action or not for each case:
1) Mother wants to abort her 8-month-old child because she doesn’t want a kid.
2) Mother wants to abort her 7-month-old child because he was tested positive for a congenital birth defect that he probably own’t survive.
3) Parents refuse treatment for their newborn who has a congenital heart defect; he will die. The operation to save his life is 5% effective.
4) Same as 3, but the operation is 100% effective.
5) Parents refuse a life-saving blood transfusion for their child, because of their religious beliefs.
6) Parents refuse to put their child in an approved infant safety seat, because it’s none of government’s business how they drive their kid around.
7) Same as 6, but the mother has the 1-year-old in her lap while driving.
8) Parents live in an FLDS compound, but there is no evidence that they are doing anything wrong to their kids, except for teaching them a religion that believes in polygamy. The CDC wants to take the children.
9) A 14-year-old daughter falls in love with her 22-year-old teacher. THe parents meet with the teacher, decide he is good for their child, and lets them sleep together in their house as a common-law marriage (because legally they can’t get married).
10) A mother puts her 6-year-old son in a dress and sends him to school.
11) A vaccine for HPV is developed. For simplicity, it’s 100% effective against cervical cancer, and has no side effects. Government mandates the vaccine be given to every child before puberty, which will effectively eliminate all cervical cancer in our country in one generation.
I wonder how many people who reject the Gardasil vaccination would approve of government stepping in to save the newborn with a lifesaving operation, over the parent’s wishes.
But who different is that from government encouraging a vaccine that will certainly save some kid’s lives, and allowing a parental opt-out? In both cases government is encouraging/dictating a medical treatment that will certainly save children’s lives. In the one case, we can put a face on the child, in the other we don’t know which children will be saved, but we know they will be saved.
I’m not trying to make people change their mind about school-required vaccines. I am trying to make people see the nuance and complexity of the issue of when we allow government to step in. I think Perry made a mistake, but I think it was a perfectly understandable one from a pro-life perspective, and I don’t think it shows any untoward risk of him supporting Obamacare if he’s elected.
I’m a Sarah Palin supporter. But if I based my support for her on what I see from some of her supporters, I might well have changed my mind.
It is irrational to decide on candidates based on what people claiming to support candidates say here at FR.
Crony capitalism: taking money from Gardasil’s competitors then going into a national debate and attacking Gardasil. Wonder how much money she got to do that.
I so agree with you. It has sickened me they way these two women have been thrown under the bus because some Freepers have a new shiny toy.
If this is an indication of who Perry attracts as a supporter, it makes me uneasy voting or supporting him.
Some other guy named Charles once said that "people die every day." It still doesn't help me understand.
The issue is freedom. Yes, Perry had an opt out. But it's backwards. To opt out, you have to know you can opt out. There is no mandatory education supplied with the mandatory shot to say that you could die or be permanently disabled, and that you have the right to refuse government medical treatment. This should be the Nuremberg version of Miranda rights.
Y'all want to believe the government spin on the shots, fine. I won't prevent you from getting them. I'll even go along with the gov funding shots deemed critical for national health even though I don't believe a word of it regarding earlier epidemics like polio.
I must have the right to hear the physicians who point out the fraud of government medicine, and to exercise the right to refuse treatment for me and my children. I must have the right to exercise my conscience when some Dracula types murder an unborn baby and grow viruses in its flesh. That's how the polio vaccine began; they got the Nobel prize for growing the virus in murdered baby flesh. Will I, under PerryCare, have the right to refuse to inject murdered baby pus into me and my children?
Bachmann did a good thing pointing this out. ObamaCare is leading us down to the road to forced care and death panels. While I'll vote for Perry if he is the nominee, I'd like the issue of forced or coerced medical treatment aired out before the election.
Perry's rating:
Did you by chance see a certain non candidate's rating? She's not nearly as hardcore conservative as Perry.
Palin's ranking:
Even Michelle Bachmann isn't as hardcore conservative as Perry:
Yes, I have no use for Perry. This from a person who never heard of the guy. Two weeks of unrelenting assault on another human being’s character and personal apearance has disgusted me to no ends.
If it’s this bad for Bachmann, what will it be like if and when Sarah Palin gets into the race?
To be fair you should also post the number of deaths related to the cancer the vaccine is intended to reduce.
I don't think you how Propaganda works ;)
Why do you think that? It's been a while since I had to get vaccines for my kids, but we had to sign consent forms, that were quite detailed in the risks associated with the vaccines.
On the other hand, there is no mandatory understanding clause, and I imagine a lot of parents just sign the forms. IF the doctor is giving the vaccine, they assume the doctor thinks it is safe. How would a parent know more than a trained medical professional?
Instead, he looked like the eternal deer in the headlights. For some of us on FR, that was a real turnoff.
Usually we expect bald faced lies and false accusations of felonies on national television to come from God-hating Leftists not from so-called "conservative Christians".
Yes, Perry is naive. He needs to learn that ALL politicians are vicious liars who will shiv their own mother in the back to snatch power.
With regard to Bachmann, however, she, as a lawyer, should know better than to support her argument with anecdotal evidence.
Beyond demonstrating poor judgment and unprofessionalism, her action reeks of desperation and even raises the specter of potential dishonesty (fabrication) on her part.
She acted stupidly.;-)
I wouldn’t say that he was “naive”; I would say he was unprepared. This whole gardisil megilla is nothing new. Maybe next time he’ll do better.
Cool. Another one bites the dust.
Perry, naive? Give me a break. I guess him implying that people against making Gardasil mandatory was a “conservative Christian” thing to do.
I do know, the Dream Act is not a conservative position.
What am I missing in your post? I don’t understand it.
If Perry included that, and the form included a clearly presented notification that the shot is optional, then I'll take back what I wrote. I know a consent form implies the shot is optional, but it should be spelled out. The MSM broadcast the shot as "mandatory."
I wouldn't know about consent forms because I don't vaccinate my kids. I had to shop for an MD who would go along because other parents ran into doctors who were very intimidating, even nasty, treating parents like idiots ... kind of like some posts I've read lately on other threads denigrating Bachmann supporters and vaccine refuseniks.
On your other point, parents should try to learn as much as they can about what doctors (and teachers) do to their children. I had to study a lot before deciding to overrule government medicine.
“A vaccine for cancer would be a triumph for public health. Did I say “would be”? Actually, it is. Such a vaccine exists for one of the biggest killers of women. But Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., is against it, and she’s not alone.”
I am pretty sure that Bachmann isn’t against the vaccine. She is against it being forced on children; something I agree with. Her “mistake” was using a “hearsay” information as factual (the reference to it causing retardation). That wasn’t wise.
At least in the past, FR posters have screamed bloody murder about “nanny state” policies that trample on personal liberties. It would seem to me, that although she went too far, her basic arguement is against “Nanny-State” vaccinations on something that isn’t an immediate threat to life and limb. You don’t force (or coerce) someone to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted virus that they “may” become exposed to later in life, that “may” if they are exposed, cause cervical cancer. This has “Nanny-State” written all over it. I remember how Mike Huckabee was pillored here in 2008 for being a “Nanny-State” governor....why should Perry get a pass????
Also, IF we are going to follow the line of logic in this article, then we should completely ban Tobacco and Alcholic beverages. How may deaths by cancer could be stopped by the end of tobacco use???? How may deaths could be avoided by an alcohol free country???? Quite a few actually...many more than would be lost to cervical cancer. However, I think MOST here would be livid over such a ban....so very “Nanny-State.” Not to mention the stomping on personal liberties.
And why stop there???? Let us begin mandatory testing of all teens for venerial disease??? Then force those testing positive to undergo treatment. Wouldn’t this save lives????
You see, it sounds logical to say vaccinations of ALL preteen girls will stop cervical cancer....but it is a dangerous path to tread if you don’t want to open yourself ut to endless “Nanny-State” initiatives.
I think the vaccine has merit, but it must be totally voluntary. And there must be NO reprecussions for those that don’t chose to be vaccinated or parents those chose not to vaccinate their daugters.
The forum is rife with those that what LESS GOVERNMENT. That is what Bachmann is really saying....although poorly.
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.