Gasp! Rick Perry (whom the Sainted Molly aptly yclept “Governor Goodhair”) took action to protect the health of Texas children against the will and wishes of the snake-handling knuckle-walkers?
(Cue music: “A World Turned Upside Down”…)
OK, then. A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do whacka do.
Your marginally esteemed correspondent from the conservative wing of the extreme left hereby (gag! choke!) applauds this courageous action. The man has taken a stand for children, common sense, and simple decency.
While I don’t have any ethical objections to requiring the vaccine - it’s no more a “tacit approval for teen sex” than giving girls the same age a german measles booster to protect their future children - I worry a little that it’s a bit premature to do so. The vaccine seems to work well, but how much study of long term effects could there possibly be at this point given that it’s been on the market only a few months? Just a few years at most, I imagine.
Well, this is the first thing that Mr. Perry has ever done that I don’t totally hate. I despice the man and I’m glad he doesn’t have much power. Unfortunately, Mr. Dewhurst is far worse.
As long as Merck is making money off the order, I would say it is a bad idea. Quite apart from the apparent ties between Merck and Gov. Perry, no single company should be making significant money off a health order of this type. It raises some serious ethical concerns.
In addition, I am generally opposed to ordering people to obtain vaccines when there is insufficient evidence over time of the effect of the vaccine on humans. Come back in 10 or 20 years, and, if we still think it is safe, THEN let’s talk about compulsory vaccination.
The plus side is that it isn’t stabilized with any mercury/organic compounds. The down side is that it was accelerated to market and the sole maker of the product is bankrolling efforts to make it mandatory with school children. That is a conflict of interest that should be illegal. Essentially young girls who are not at risk will be used as guinea pigs. I think it would be more prudent to let the 18 and older crowd test it a little longer before we force it on innocent children.
Sarcasm aside you should know this is a hot topic in other states. it’s one thing to expedite it for public use. It’s another thing to rush a cure for a sexually transmitted disease to 11 year old children.
Considering the history of drugs that were withdrawn from market for safety reasons I’m not keen on a trend of using children as test subjects.
This is a valid point, though I lean the other way and applaud this action. This is a vaccine which parents can opt out of “for reasons of conscience,” which would surely allow parents grounds to refuse the vaccine for their children, which will hopefully act as a safety valve for those who share your views.
Thanks for pointing that out. I missed that completely. Kentucky is considering the same thing and I hope they include the same claus.
My objection comes from personal experience. A couple of years ago I was perscribed a drug that had a serious side effect (bad muscle cramps). Since I have high blood pressure and elevated cholesterol levels it didn’t take a genius to figure out this was a heart attack waiting to happen. I had never had a muscle cramp in my life. Once that thought occured to me I stopped taking the drug. About 6 months later I see an announcement on the news that it is yanked off the market because of heart attacks. WTH - that didn’t show up in trials? Give me a fucking break.
I hope this drug turns out to be all they say it is but it’s being pushed on us by the company that makes it.
While parents have an opt out option, in general, in my opinion, for the reasons stated above, it would be better to start the program as an opt-in program. Educate and offer, rather than indoctrinate and make you have to try and get an exclusion.
Interesting point. Stick the public with the bill for the shots (pun intended) and then hand them a bill for lawsuits. Merc would certainly have to pay but the state would carry some liability.
And as noted above, it would be better to sell parents on the idea of the vaccine instead of forced. It should also be explained, in great detail, that it doesn’t stop all forms of the virus. It’s not a license to fuck.
I have basically the same objections to this vaccine being mandatory as Magiver does…doesn’t seem tested enough, and there is definitely a conflict of interest where Merck is concerned. I also have another objection…I don’t like the idea of a mandatory vaccine for a disease that can easily be controlled through behavior of the individual, (meaning not normal, everyday interactions with people such as going to school & sitting in a classroom). IMO, we all have an obligation to the public health by being vaccinated for such easily-spread diseases, but I don’t think HPV qualifies for that.
Because, as the utter and uncontested success of abstinence-only sex education in lowering teen pregnancy proves, teenagers will listen obediently when told “Don’t do it”…
