The fact that abstaining from sex as a method of avoiding sexual issues is not usually successful does not make what the prior poster said invalid.
When I was young, mandatory innoculations for one of the measles was added (my memory is confirmed by Wikipedia, which mentions that rubella vaccines were introduced in 1969, the spring of my third grade year). Since the disease is spread by actions that no person can avoid without being a shut-in, it is different than a disease where you can avoid the potential for infection simply by not doing a specific thing.
I’m not saying that alone makes it valid to argue against mandatory innoculation. I simply point out that it is a difference, and the fact that many people currently choose not to avoid that action is not a valid argument against the assertion.
Considering that “estimates suggest . . . that up to 75% of women will become infected with one or more of the sexually transmitted HPV types at some point during adulthood” and “recent studies have concluded that condoms only offer partial protection, at best, against the transmission of genital HPVs” (Wiki, but with soid cites ), it’s looks like the only way to avoid a signifigant risk of HPV is to remain entirely celibate. And I think it can be argued that being sexually active is as much a part of “normal, everyday interactions with people” as going to school or working outside the home. It’s not a matter of not having unprotected sex with lots of strangers. Having sex at all puts you at risk, and having sex is normal.
For those who are against the vaccine because of what is perceived as too little testing, just what would be a proper amount of time to test this? Have you searched to see just how long this vaccine has been tested? Are there differences between this type of vaccine and other drugs as far as potential side effects?
To those who don’t think young girls(10-14) should be subjected to this, did you take into consideration the fact that once you have contracted the virus(at age 14-18), the vaccine is useless. So you have to innoculate before that time.
Let me state for the record I have problems with mandatory innoculation. And I certainly have problems with the lobbying connections of Merck/Texas.
First, the age referred to is 11(6th grade), not 10-14. Second most women who get the virus overcome it naturally (70% in first 6 months and 90% in 2 years). It’s a misnomer to say the virus causes cancer. There is also no public safety risk that warrants mandatory shots. It is also not a disease that is contracted through normal daily interaction. Given the nature of the shot you could mandate hundreds of inoculations as a precursor for attending school.
They tested it on 11,000 people around the world. I don’t know if that’s a lot of people. I’m not sure what “rapid approval” actually means to the FDA but from their site you get this:
**The manufacturer has agreed to conduct several studies following licensure, including additional studies to further evaluate general safety and long-term effectiveness. **
I’d like to volunteer all the Merc board of directors, and their children.
Texas Republicans cannot do something right. I’m sorry.
There is a real flaw here. The “right” is to be paid off by pharm companies.
If that clown doesn’t retire rich, and have a million a year job as a pharm lobbist, then he’s not a real Texas Republican.
My point is that I don’t think this particular virus is dangerous or is spread easily enough to constitute a serious public health risk. It is only spread through sexual contact, and despite the fact that it can cause cancer, it is a cancer that is easily diagnosed and treated.
I am looking at this more from a libertarian standpoint. I am not saying it isn’t smart to get the vaccine, and I may decide to have my daughter get the vaccine when she gets to the appropriate age. However, I believe that if the government wishes to infringe on the peoples’ right to make their own decision about vaccines, there should be an overwhelming benefit to society at large, and I don’t see it in this case.
It’s less dangerous than, say, lung cancer, but more dangerous than chicken pox.
And again, I think sex is well within any definition of normal human behavior. You don’t have to have a history of any sort of risky sexual behavior to be at a signifigant risk to catch HPV.
Yes, and I’m not too thrilled with mandatory chicken pox vaccines, either.
That is true, but it’s not the same thing as catching it from someone who walks past you on the street. HPV prevention is relatively easy compared to diseases that are airborne, with simple safe sex measures. I believe that government-mandated vaccines should be reserved for easily-spread diseases that would otherwise require quarantines and/or pose an extreme risk to health.
People in this age group often don’t use “simple safe sex measures.” Also, raped women/girls don’t get to choose if their rapists use “simple safe sex measures.” They definitely don’t deserve to die for it.
So even safe sex procedures are not nearly as effective as they could be.
I am not advocating mandatory vaccinations. But if we don’t allow kids to go to college without a measles vaccination, since they could give it to other kids in the course of every day normal interactions, then I think this meets that same standard.
I don’t think it’s the same standard at all. When I was in college, I was exposed every day to hundreds of people breathing on me. I was exposed to one person through sexual contact. Being in a serious relationship may have made me somewhat unusual, but I highly, highly doubt that anyone would be anywhere near as likely to be exposed to HPV as measles, were no vaccine available for either.
“Far-fetched” is the possibility of 1) being raped, 2) catching HPV from the rape, 3) having the HPV develop into cervical cancer, and 4) dying from the cancer. I’d love to see a statistic on how often that happens.
And any other scenario other than rape involves personal choice & responsibility, which you may know by now is a big thing with me. People in my world aren’t celibate, either (well, at least, not most of them), but not being celibate doesn’t negate the need for personal responsibility.
As I said, I think it’s smart to get the vaccine, but just because something is a good idea for personal safety, it doesn’t mean they government should mandate it. Ask me sometime what I think about seatbelt & helmet laws.
You have a problem with sexually active 11 year olds in your family? You’re going to need more than this shot to cover all the STD’s. And should we give shots to kids for every disease that kills .04% of the population?
I don’t know about making the shots mandatory, since I don’t know if they are completely proven yet. And I want them proven scientifically, not based on religious handwaving or head-in-the-sandism.
Personally, I don’t care if don’t wear a seatbelt. I do care if you don’t make your kids wear one.
How many would mumps kill if we let it run it’s course? And you give all vaccines before the period when infection is likely. Not much point in giving them at all, otherwise.
Again, not really making an arguement here except to say that some sort of sexual relationship is normal human behavior, and a person who only has sex with one other person in their whole life is still at a non-negligible risk for HPV.
Argue against mandatory vaccinations all you want–and certainly argue that this vaccine is relatively untested-- but I haven’t seen how, in theory, this disease is different from other very common infections.
Why shouldn’t we jump at the chance to help prevent roughly 2,500 women a year from dying? We should also certainly subsidize this vaccine for women in less developed nations where pap smears are much less common and the disease often not caught until advanced.
