Texas Forcing Teenage girls to have Cancer Vaccine
Submitted by JaHu on Fri, 2007/02/02 - 5:12pm.
Is it me or is this overstepping the boundary of government? Texas is now requiring, no forcing, teenage girls to be vaccinated for cervical cancer. I'm not a fan of forced vaccinations anyway, but in this case, it isn't needed for the prevention of the spread of a contagious disease. Link to Story
How is this different from "forced" mumps, measles, and chicken pox vaccines? It PREVENTS CANCER, for cryin' out loud!
It isn't different! When the government is able to forcibly inject a liquid into our bodies against our freewill, then we have lost all of our rights of freedom, and who's to say that the shots that we received as kids, hasn't been the cause of obesity and loss of energy to the majority of the adults in the nation? There could be side affects that don't show up for many years, and who knows the long term affect it will have on our children's children. They now know antibiotics are becoming less useful for fighting bacteria because as the bacteria multiplies, some of it has mutated and has built up resistance to the antibiotics. The over use of these vaccines could also prove to have the same affect on the diseases they were designed to fight. If some people want these vaccinations, fine, I'm not saying vaccinations haven't seemingly done good, but I know what happens when something is generally first promoted as voluntary, and I just don't trust our government enough anymore to believe these vaccines are really for the good of the people and not just a scam to put money into the pockets of the drug companies and legislators who support it.
I had a polio shot when I was a kid. It may have been mandatory, I don't know because I was too young. Either way, my parents apparently considered it mandatory.
I went to school with kids who were disabled by polio. When was the last time you heard of a polio case in the U.S.?
Is the real issue here moral, and therefore political owing to the influence of the radical Christian right, because the vaccine prevents an STD?
Would there be a similar outcry if an effecitve vaccination against HIV were developed and mandated?
Submitted by cdthomas23 on Tue, 2007/02/06 - 3:33pm.
To answer your rhetorical question, R. Neal, yes I believe the real issue here is morality in addition to the limits of government. The interesting thing about this vaccine as opposed to some others (MMR, etc.) is there is a 100% way (from what I understand) not to contract this virus. While there are different views on abstinence, this is the way to ensure you do not get the virus.
I understand the need for vaccines for viruses that are communicable simply through human contact, but for ones that are only contagious through sexual intercourse, then I don't feel the government should MAKE my children get the vaccine.
Submitted by Andy Axel on Tue, 2007/02/06 - 4:36pm.
Once again, nutballery gets in the way of easy prevention of disease.
Genital HPV infection is very common, with estimates suggesting that up to 75% of women will become infected with one or more of the sexually transmitted HPV types at some point during adulthood (Baseman and Koutsky, 2005). Some sexually transmitted HPVs, such as types 6 and 11, can cause genital warts. However, most HPV types that infect the genitals tend not to cause noticeable symptoms. Persistent infection with a subset of about a dozen so-called "high-risk" sexually transmitted HPVs, including types 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45 and 51 can lead to the development of cervical dyskaryosis, which may in turn lead to cancer of the cervix. HPV infection is a necessary factor in the development of nearly all cases of cervical cancer (Walboomers 1999).
3 in 4 women. Most probably, one (or more) of these may be your daughter(s).
Never mind that they will have the same drives as every other human being in the world. Take a 3-in-4 gamble that you may punish them to an excruciating illness, perhaps even death if they contract a dread disease from the natural act of sexual contact. Rather than giving them a shot, risk that they may have to undergo chemotherapy, cervical excision, or hysterectomy.
Submitted by cdthomas23 on Tue, 2007/02/06 - 8:53pm.
Sexual abstinence is prevention of many things and takes the gamble out of the equation. It is sad to see that it is so looked down upon. I simply think the parents should have the right to choose and inform their children about the continued risks.
It's looked down upon because - unless you're a nun or a hermit - it's completely unserious approach to this problem. It's using a terrible disease as a silly, ineffective scare tactic, akin to "you'll grow hair on your palms" or "you'll go blind."
My point above was that exposure to the disease is not just a function of remaining celibate (which for the vast majority of people is extraordinarily rare and always has been). That's like saying you'll never get into an accident because you're a good driver. It's also a function of your eventual partner remaining celibate, and them telling you the truth. Human beings just don't operate this way.
Submitted by Andy Axel on Tue, 2007/02/06 - 10:31pm.
I simply think the parents should have the right to choose and inform their children about the continued risks.
So, you'd probably say the same thing if an effective clinical prophylaxis was developed to prevent AIDS, hm?
But, for the glaring lack of comprehension, let's go over this again...
There is an opt-out for this program, so you can feel free to instruct your children as you see fit, even in TX. However, just because you don't want your children immunized against a preventable disease doesn't mean that other children should be deprived thereof.
Leave it to a "conservative," however, to get the government off your back, and to put it under your bed -- as if you can legislate sexual mores by allowing the spread of preventable disease owing to a morbid theory of Divine Retribution, or whatever.
For what it's worth, "don't fuck" is a horribly ineffective -- and dare I say, incredibly naïve -- instruction manual for teenagers.
Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Wed, 2007/02/07 - 8:15am.
Andy: "For what it's worth, "don't fuck" is a horribly ineffective -- and dare I say, incredibly naïve -- instruction manual for teenagers."
There are certainly some points arising over here that I might have addressed more directly!
Effective or not (and I also say not), you'll roll your eyes to hear about the methodology of the approach Knox County Schools is taking in the Wellness class required of all high school sophomores:
This past fall, my sophomore came home from school one aft wearing a shirt other than the one she'd left the house wearing that morning. Her new tee, purchased in support of the Just Wait campaign, had this message emblazoned across the front: Pants...keep 'em on. I asked whether the Just Wait folks were pandering their goods directly, in the classroom and she said "yes."
I explained that it was Planned Parenthood's budget that was more beleaguered and asked whether they got a crack at this same market. Apparently not. Hmmm...
Submitted by talidapali on Wed, 2007/02/07 - 4:19pm.
in the era of GHB and rufees and Girls Gone Wild...even the most saintly of girls can come up against someone who has NO compunction about using a drug to induce compliance. All the preaching about abstinence in the world will STILL NOT PREVENT ONE CASE OF AN STD TRANSMITTED BY FORCE (and believe you me, most rapists don't bother with condoms either,despite CSI and the threat of DNA evidence). Vaccination for HPV can AT LEAST keep someone you purportedly "love" from contracting a disease that can be debilitating and possibly even FATAL.
Or do you seriously just not give a damn, unless it's a "faith-based" initiative?
JaHu, it looks like you've started with a basic philosophical objection (which is fine, and a valid and allowable basis for opting out even with most "mandatory" vaccinations including this one) and are looking for rationalizations.
Your assumptions are questionable or just plain wrong - like the comparison between vaccinations and antibiotics. There's plenty of good information out there on why HPV is a serious problem and how the vaccine will help if you're open to it.
I had a polio shot when I was a kid. It may have been mandatory, I don't know because I was too young. Either way, my parents apparently considered it mandatory.
I went to school with kids who were disabled by polio. When was the last time you heard of a polio case in the U.S.?
Randy, True the shots appear to have wiped out polio... and Sven I'm not questioning that HPV isn't a serious threat, but since the time of the polio vaccines, seems the pharmaceutical companies and many people within our government, our honorable ex-senator Bill Frist comes to mind, have figured that this is a great way to extradite money from it's taxpayers, and the best way to do this is to bring kids into the mix. They always use kids as the guinea pigs for vaccines. My guess is they do this because they know they can make the parents feel as if they are bad parent's if they don't agree to the shots. If the pharmaceut's had their way, we would all look like we were full of buckshot holes from all the inoculations.
How many girls has this been tested on and for how many years, any side affects known, any side affects unknown? To suddenly spring this on a community and saying that it is going to be mandatory is wrong. Are they to have blind faith and accept whatever is thrust upon them?
...and Sven, why is my comparison between vaccinations and antibiotics wrong?
It isn't different! When the government is able to forcibly inject a liquid into our bodies against our freewill, then we have lost all of our rights of freedom, and who's to say that the shots that we received as kids, hasn't been the cause of obesity and loss of energy to the majority of the adults in the nation?
Actually, for the issues of obesity and fatigue syndromes, I would be far more inclined to blame the beef industry for force feeding us hormones and antibiotics for the last 30 years or so. What about high fructose corn syrup???
Women constantly take the hit, though. Why couldn't a PPV vaccination been engineered for young men? Still prevents an STD first, right? Birth control for men? Amazing how quick the Pharm industry is to alter the female of the species.
Actually, for the issues of obesity and fatigue syndromes, I would be far more inclined to blame the beef industry for force feeding us hormones and antibiotics for the last 30 years or so.
I agree, I was just throwing that in as a 'what if'.
But you know? It is the same government that says they will save us with vaccinations, that allows the beef industry to force feed the hormones and antibiotics into the cattle that we eat and drink of it's milk.
That's a good point about bias, Leslie, one my wife reminds me of often. Here's an overview from the American Cancer Society of the research (including safety issues, JaHu). The last part of that section explains where the research on males stands. It looks like the drug company is conducting trials, but there's debate about the effectiveness of including boys if most girls are immunized.
On the difference between vaccines and antibiotics (experts please weigh in if I screw this up): in addition to 1) being generally aimed at different organisms (if you count viruses as organisms), and 2) working differently in the body (building up immunity vs. eliminating infections), they are 3) entirely different strategies for fighting disease.
Vaccines are preventative (although antibiotics are often incorrectly used this way, especially in agriculture) and antibiotics are individual treatments. In addition, the goal of a mandatory vaccine is to develop "herd immunity" - attacking the prevalence of the disease in the population and in some cases it s very existence (the disease, not the population ;) ).
So basically, a vaccine's success increases the more it it used; an antibiotic's effectiveness decreases the more it's used (because there's no way you can wipe out all sources of a given bacterium).
...PS, this is very much oversimplified, and by vaccine I mean prophylactic vaccine. There are also therapeutic vaccines.
Submitted by Mykhailo on Mon, 2007/02/05 - 8:16am.
Reminds me of the forced vaccination I was forced to get for yellow fever when I traveled to Ghana. Voluntarily travelled I may add. If I want to get yellow fever, its my right. WHAT, ARE THEY GOING TO FORCE ME TO WIPE MY ASS NEXT!! NANNY STATE, ANYONE?!!!! Lets stop yello fever vacinatins too!!! BIG PHARMAS BEHIND ALL OF THIS!
Submitted by WhitesCreek on Mon, 2007/02/05 - 8:50am.
but in this case, it isn't needed for the prevention of the spread of a contagious disease.
Yes it is. And even though the vaccine is pricey, the treatment for cervical cancer cases that would certainly occur later on would be much more expensive. My understanding, however, is that parents can opt their child out of the program.
Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Mon, 2007/02/05 - 11:00am.
WhitesCreek: "My understanding, however, is that parents can opt their child out of the program."
That was my understanding, too, and I was pleased to see some wiggle room in the governor's edict.
This issue brings to mind the muddle I originally felt with regard to recent federal legislation to require parental notification of a teenage girl's choice to have an abortion (Disclaimer: I don't care to start any feathers flying here, so I'll try to stay concise...).
In that instance, I originally felt torn between my strong support for a woman's right to choose generally and my personal interest in obtaining a parent's right to know, as I am parent to a teenage daughter. I should add that, in the matter of a parent's becoming involved in a teen's decision, I also recognized the potential for a *parent's* right to choose, either way, to overshadow any rights we might afford the teen in another context, and that troubled me, too.
Ultimately, though not without some hesitation, I had to conclude that parental notification was a restriction I could live with intellectually and that it was appropriate to address any further attempts at restrictions on abortion one-at-a-time, on the basis of each such proposal's merit with regard to the common good. You could say, then, that I accepted this restriction to a personal freedom of my or anyone's minor child when I weighed it against the common good. I take comfort in the knowledge that a majority of Americans supports abortion rights and I recognize that teens, after all, continue to rely on their parents both financially and emotionally.
Quickly and definitively returning to the issue at hand, then, when I apply this same logic to the question of a mandated vaccine, I see that same conundrum of weighing personal freedoms against the common good. I could accept this restriction, too, then, even as I kept a watchful eye against the scale tipping too inordinately in favor of "groupthink."
Thank you for *your* watchful eye,JaHu. Our continued vigilance will always be important in issues of this sort.
Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Mon, 2007/02/05 - 11:29am.
I might have addressed the role of lobbying by pharmacuetical companies in this issue, too, since it appears to me that those efforts are playing a role in this Texas public policy issue.
Simply, I'm able to separate that issue from the other one of personal freedoms versus common interests. The role of lobbyists in the formation of public policy is one concerning in a whole lot of contexts, and virtually demands a forum all its own.
How is this different from "forced" mumps, measles, and chicken pox vaccines? It PREVENTS CANCER, for cryin' out loud!
How is this different from "forced" mumps, measles, and chicken pox vaccines? It PREVENTS CANCER, for cryin' out loud!
It isn't different! When the government is able to forcibly inject a liquid into our bodies against our freewill, then we have lost all of our rights of freedom, and who's to say that the shots that we received as kids, hasn't been the cause of obesity and loss of energy to the majority of the adults in the nation? There could be side affects that don't show up for many years, and who knows the long term affect it will have on our children's children. They now know antibiotics are becoming less useful for fighting bacteria because as the bacteria multiplies, some of it has mutated and has built up resistance to the antibiotics. The over use of these vaccines could also prove to have the same affect on the diseases they were designed to fight. If some people want these vaccinations, fine, I'm not saying vaccinations haven't seemingly done good, but I know what happens when something is generally first promoted as voluntary, and I just don't trust our government enough anymore to believe these vaccines are really for the good of the people and not just a scam to put money into the pockets of the drug companies and legislators who support it.
Adrift in the Sea of Humility
I had a polio shot when I was a kid. It may have been mandatory, I don't know because I was too young. Either way, my parents apparently considered it mandatory.
I went to school with kids who were disabled by polio. When was the last time you heard of a polio case in the U.S.?
Is the real issue here moral, and therefore political owing to the influence of the radical Christian right, because the vaccine prevents an STD?
Would there be a similar outcry if an effecitve vaccination against HIV were developed and mandated?
I'm just asking.
To answer your rhetorical question, R. Neal, yes I believe the real issue here is morality in addition to the limits of government. The interesting thing about this vaccine as opposed to some others (MMR, etc.) is there is a 100% way (from what I understand) not to contract this virus. While there are different views on abstinence, this is the way to ensure you do not get the virus.
I understand the need for vaccines for viruses that are communicable simply through human contact, but for ones that are only contagious through sexual intercourse, then I don't feel the government should MAKE my children get the vaccine.
Craig Thomas
Link...
Once again, nutballery gets in the way of easy prevention of disease.
3 in 4 women. Most probably, one (or more) of these may be your daughter(s).
Never mind that they will have the same drives as every other human being in the world. Take a 3-in-4 gamble that you may punish them to an excruciating illness, perhaps even death if they contract a dread disease from the natural act of sexual contact. Rather than giving them a shot, risk that they may have to undergo chemotherapy, cervical excision, or hysterectomy.
That'll teach 'em, huh?
____________________________
Recursive blogwhore.
Sexual abstinence is prevention of many things and takes the gamble out of the equation. It is sad to see that it is so looked down upon. I simply think the parents should have the right to choose and inform their children about the continued risks.
Craig Thomas
Link...
I simply think the parents should have the right to choose and inform their children about the continued risks.
Yeah, and let's not forget to inform them about the risk of hellfire and damnation - especially about hellfire and damnation.
Come See Us at
The Hill Online
It's looked down upon because - unless you're a nun or a hermit - it's completely unserious approach to this problem. It's using a terrible disease as a silly, ineffective scare tactic, akin to "you'll grow hair on your palms" or "you'll go blind."
My point above was that exposure to the disease is not just a function of remaining celibate (which for the vast majority of people is extraordinarily rare and always has been). That's like saying you'll never get into an accident because you're a good driver. It's also a function of your eventual partner remaining celibate, and them telling you the truth. Human beings just don't operate this way.
So, you'd probably say the same thing if an effective clinical prophylaxis was developed to prevent AIDS, hm?
But, for the glaring lack of comprehension, let's go over this again...
There is an opt-out for this program, so you can feel free to instruct your children as you see fit, even in TX. However, just because you don't want your children immunized against a preventable disease doesn't mean that other children should be deprived thereof.
Leave it to a "conservative," however, to get the government off your back, and to put it under your bed -- as if you can legislate sexual mores by allowing the spread of preventable disease owing to a morbid theory of Divine Retribution, or whatever.
For what it's worth, "don't fuck" is a horribly ineffective -- and dare I say, incredibly naïve -- instruction manual for teenagers.
Hope it works out for you.
____________________________
Recursive blogwhore.
Andy: "For what it's worth, "don't fuck" is a horribly ineffective -- and dare I say, incredibly naïve -- instruction manual for teenagers."
There are certainly some points arising over here that I might have addressed more directly!
Effective or not (and I also say not), you'll roll your eyes to hear about the methodology of the approach Knox County Schools is taking in the Wellness class required of all high school sophomores:
This past fall, my sophomore came home from school one aft wearing a shirt other than the one she'd left the house wearing that morning. Her new tee, purchased in support of the Just Wait campaign, had this message emblazoned across the front: Pants...keep 'em on. I asked whether the Just Wait folks were pandering their goods directly, in the classroom and she said "yes."
I explained that it was Planned Parenthood's budget that was more beleaguered and asked whether they got a crack at this same market. Apparently not. Hmmm...
Sexual abstinence is prevention of many things and takes the gamble out of the equation.
Well, yeah. If a woman never has sex her entire life, she's not at risk of contracting HPV.
in the era of GHB and rufees and Girls Gone Wild...even the most saintly of girls can come up against someone who has NO compunction about using a drug to induce compliance. All the preaching about abstinence in the world will STILL NOT PREVENT ONE CASE OF AN STD TRANSMITTED BY FORCE (and believe you me, most rapists don't bother with condoms either,despite CSI and the threat of DNA evidence). Vaccination for HPV can AT LEAST keep someone you purportedly "love" from contracting a disease that can be debilitating and possibly even FATAL.
Or do you seriously just not give a damn, unless it's a "faith-based" initiative?
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
Last I heard, sexual intercourse qualifies as human contact.
...Also, most people infected with the virus are not aware they are. And there's currently no test available to detect the virus in men.
Fortunately most men - especially the good God-fearin' kind - are completely upfront about their sexual histories, so no problemo.
JaHu, it looks like you've started with a basic philosophical objection (which is fine, and a valid and allowable basis for opting out even with most "mandatory" vaccinations including this one) and are looking for rationalizations.
Your assumptions are questionable or just plain wrong - like the comparison between vaccinations and antibiotics. There's plenty of good information out there on why HPV is a serious problem and how the vaccine will help if you're open to it.
I had a polio shot when I was a kid. It may have been mandatory, I don't know because I was too young. Either way, my parents apparently considered it mandatory.
I went to school with kids who were disabled by polio. When was the last time you heard of a polio case in the U.S.?
Randy, True the shots appear to have wiped out polio... and Sven I'm not questioning that HPV isn't a serious threat, but since the time of the polio vaccines, seems the pharmaceutical companies and many people within our government, our honorable ex-senator Bill Frist comes to mind, have figured that this is a great way to extradite money from it's taxpayers, and the best way to do this is to bring kids into the mix. They always use kids as the guinea pigs for vaccines. My guess is they do this because they know they can make the parents feel as if they are bad parent's if they don't agree to the shots. If the pharmaceut's had their way, we would all look like we were full of buckshot holes from all the inoculations.
How many girls has this been tested on and for how many years, any side affects known, any side affects unknown? To suddenly spring this on a community and saying that it is going to be mandatory is wrong. Are they to have blind faith and accept whatever is thrust upon them?
...and Sven, why is my comparison between vaccinations and antibiotics wrong?
Adrift in the Sea of Humility
It isn't different! When the government is able to forcibly inject a liquid into our bodies against our freewill, then we have lost all of our rights of freedom, and who's to say that the shots that we received as kids, hasn't been the cause of obesity and loss of energy to the majority of the adults in the nation?
Actually, for the issues of obesity and fatigue syndromes, I would be far more inclined to blame the beef industry for force feeding us hormones and antibiotics for the last 30 years or so. What about high fructose corn syrup???
Women constantly take the hit, though. Why couldn't a PPV vaccination been engineered for young men? Still prevents an STD first, right? Birth control for men? Amazing how quick the Pharm industry is to alter the female of the species.
Actually, for the issues of obesity and fatigue syndromes, I would be far more inclined to blame the beef industry for force feeding us hormones and antibiotics for the last 30 years or so.
I agree, I was just throwing that in as a 'what if'.
But you know? It is the same government that says they will save us with vaccinations, that allows the beef industry to force feed the hormones and antibiotics into the cattle that we eat and drink of it's milk.
Adrift in the Sea of Humility
That's a good point about bias, Leslie, one my wife reminds me of often. Here's an overview from the American Cancer Society of the research (including safety issues, JaHu). The last part of that section explains where the research on males stands. It looks like the drug company is conducting trials, but there's debate about the effectiveness of including boys if most girls are immunized.
On the difference between vaccines and antibiotics (experts please weigh in if I screw this up): in addition to 1) being generally aimed at different organisms (if you count viruses as organisms), and 2) working differently in the body (building up immunity vs. eliminating infections), they are 3) entirely different strategies for fighting disease.
Vaccines are preventative (although antibiotics are often incorrectly used this way, especially in agriculture) and antibiotics are individual treatments. In addition, the goal of a mandatory vaccine is to develop "herd immunity" - attacking the prevalence of the disease in the population and in some cases it s very existence (the disease, not the population ;) ).
So basically, a vaccine's success increases the more it it used; an antibiotic's effectiveness decreases the more it's used (because there's no way you can wipe out all sources of a given bacterium).
...PS, this is very much oversimplified, and by vaccine I mean prophylactic vaccine. There are also therapeutic vaccines.
HPV is contagious.
Reminds me of the forced vaccination I was forced to get for yellow fever when I traveled to Ghana. Voluntarily travelled I may add. If I want to get yellow fever, its my right. WHAT, ARE THEY GOING TO FORCE ME TO WIPE MY ASS NEXT!! NANNY STATE, ANYONE?!!!! Lets stop yello fever vacinatins too!!! BIG PHARMAS BEHIND ALL OF THIS!
but in this case, it isn't needed for the prevention of the spread of a contagious disease.
Yes it is. And even though the vaccine is pricey, the treatment for cervical cancer cases that would certainly occur later on would be much more expensive. My understanding, however, is that parents can opt their child out of the program.
WhitesCreek: "My understanding, however, is that parents can opt their child out of the program."
That was my understanding, too, and I was pleased to see some wiggle room in the governor's edict.
This issue brings to mind the muddle I originally felt with regard to recent federal legislation to require parental notification of a teenage girl's choice to have an abortion (Disclaimer: I don't care to start any feathers flying here, so I'll try to stay concise...).
In that instance, I originally felt torn between my strong support for a woman's right to choose generally and my personal interest in obtaining a parent's right to know, as I am parent to a teenage daughter. I should add that, in the matter of a parent's becoming involved in a teen's decision, I also recognized the potential for a *parent's* right to choose, either way, to overshadow any rights we might afford the teen in another context, and that troubled me, too.
Ultimately, though not without some hesitation, I had to conclude that parental notification was a restriction I could live with intellectually and that it was appropriate to address any further attempts at restrictions on abortion one-at-a-time, on the basis of each such proposal's merit with regard to the common good. You could say, then, that I accepted this restriction to a personal freedom of my or anyone's minor child when I weighed it against the common good. I take comfort in the knowledge that a majority of Americans supports abortion rights and I recognize that teens, after all, continue to rely on their parents both financially and emotionally.
Quickly and definitively returning to the issue at hand, then, when I apply this same logic to the question of a mandated vaccine, I see that same conundrum of weighing personal freedoms against the common good. I could accept this restriction, too, then, even as I kept a watchful eye against the scale tipping too inordinately in favor of "groupthink."
Thank you for *your* watchful eye,JaHu. Our continued vigilance will always be important in issues of this sort.
I might have addressed the role of lobbying by pharmacuetical companies in this issue, too, since it appears to me that those efforts are playing a role in this Texas public policy issue.
Simply, I'm able to separate that issue from the other one of personal freedoms versus common interests. The role of lobbyists in the formation of public policy is one concerning in a whole lot of contexts, and virtually demands a forum all its own.
Post new comment