Posted on 01/20/2007 12:54:51 PM PST by wagglebee
Let's walk through a medical minefield together.
Merck & Co., a major drug manufacturer, has developed a vaccine called Gardasil that protects against some forms of the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus. Another pharmaceutical company is nearly ready to market something similar.
Good.
Experts claim HPV vaccines can protect women against cervical cancer.
Terrific.
For the vaccine to work, it should be administered before a woman becomes sexually active.
Logical.
So, health professionals recommend that girls as young as 11 receive the shots.
Troubling.
There's only one conclusion to be drawn by this tender age limit: more than a few girls are having sex at 12.
These waifs don't need a vaccine. They need morals. And parents to tell them not to have sex in middle school, lest they catch a nasty disease. Like genital warts, which are not prevented by the shots.
Then again, who needs parents when you have state government?
Enter Del. Phillip Hamilton of Newport News. He's introduced HB2035, which would add the HPV vaccine to the list of inoculations girls will need to enter sixth grade in the fall of 2008. You read that correctly. Sixth grade.
This isn't just a single shot. It's a series of three. The cost is about $360, and according to news reports, some health insurance companies don't cover it.
Not to worry. On Friday, Hamilton told me that once the vaccine is mandatory, chances are insurance companies will pay.
Hang on to your wallets, folks. This is going to cost us.
"If it becomes mandatory, the health department has to offer it for free," Hamilton acknowledged.
Of course, taxpayers fund the health departments, so we'll get to pay - twice. Once in our insurance premiums and again in our taxes.
The price for this medical munificence? When I spoke to him, Hamilton didn't have the data.
The delegate does know he's against cancer, though. Hamilton told me that if drug companies develop vaccines against other cancers - prostate or colon, for instance - he'd support making those immunizations mandatory, too.
The justification for all this government meddling in our immune systems requires a leap of logic that Hamilton has made: You must equate the danger of HPV with devastating diseases such as polio.
Sorry, delegate. There's no comparison. HPV can be controlled by behavior. Behavior that shouldn't be going on in middle school.
Parents who think it's a good idea to vaccinate their little girls against sexually transmitted diseases can do it. No need for a mandate.
You may wonder why Hamilton introduced this measure.
Is he responding to parental demand? Is he doing this because pediatricians think it's a swell idea?
Nope. In fact, The Pilot reported that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends the vaccine but isn't yet asking states to make it mandatory.
According to news reports, Hamilton, chairman of the House Committee on Health, Welfare and Institutions, introduced this bill at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry.
Let's at least be honest and call this the Merck Mandate. How many votes would that get?
These waifs don't need a vaccine. They need morals. And parents to tell them not to have sex in middle school, lest they catch a nasty disease. Like genital warts, which are not prevented by the shots.
It is very troubling to me that when this vaccine is talked about, it is almost never mentioned that it is for a sexually transmitted disease.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
*************
I suspect that if I had a teenage daughter, I might have her vaccinated. To require vaccination by law, particularly at this young age, seems to me to be an unwarranted intrusion by government. Parents alone should have the right to make this decision.
The lovely Commonwealth of Virginia is usually pretty conservative. I hope this one gets knocked down. And this Hamilton fella was urged by Merck to introduce this bill... sounds like he may be in their back pocket.
Why is the young age at the time of vaccination so troubling to some? Is it a case of, "Why do today what I can put off until tomorrow?" Why put it off?
Strict enforcement of discipline using corporal punishment, not morals, needed in middle school.
If the child gets infected, who pays? Uh-huh.
So, how long has this vaccine been tested?
I thought I came across something saying five years. That is not long enough for me to feel comfortable giving to my 13 year old.
Uh...HPV and Genital warts are the same thing.Genital warts are caused by certain types of the human papilloma virus (HPV). The shots immunize the recipient against HPV and thus genital warts.
What these 12 year olds need is morals, counselling, and the shots.
One of the reasons that the HPV vaccination is very important is the fact that even in monogamous moral adult relationships the male partner may be a carrier all the while without ever knowing or showing any symptoms.
*************
Would you apply this to all matters of health? At what point would you deny government interference?
You know, that sounds like my Canadaian relatives that resent others in the family getting expensive medical care. They thought they didn't deserve it. What are we coming to as people? As a nation?
*************
True. There's also, unfortunately, the possibility of rape.
Maybe then males need to get mandatory testing for this virus then.
Is there one? Probably not. Figures!
**************
It's a Brave New World.
Shudder! I fear you are right.
Uhh, this is really stupid. It protects you from more then STD's, and even if you assume that they will wait, which would be nice, but it is impossible to know for sure, at least after they turn 18, and even at that, they can always be raped, as horrible as that might be, I'd rather not get an STD from it too.
This kind of thinking is the kind of thinking that makes social conservatives look like moonbats.
This is the problem that the new breed of social conservatives don't seem to get. They seem to think of the government ever, at any point, might theoretically have to pay for the ills caused by social behavior, they have the right to regulate it. We use to call those people liberals...
I don't know where this breed of social conservatives came from, I'm a traditional social conservative, but they are the biggest part of what is driving the libertarian leaning conservatives to the Democrat.
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.