Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Morals, not a vaccine, needed in middle school
The Virginian Pilot ^ | 1/20/07 | Kerry Dougherty

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?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cervicalcancer; hpvvaccine; moralabsolutes; publikskoolz; teensex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last
To: wagglebee

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


See how easy common sense is?


41 posted on 01/20/2007 2:16:25 PM PST by skaterboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

More experimentation by drug companies on our population. How do we know that these drugs won't permanently damage these people. The drug companies are not concerned with curing you of anything just treatments.


42 posted on 01/20/2007 2:18:18 PM PST by ColdSteelTalon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skaterboy

funny how you draw that conclusion when the subject of the article was morals, not money. And that most people when they comment on this vaccine don't comment on who should pay, but instead talk about sex.


43 posted on 01/20/2007 2:20:08 PM PST by flashbunny (If the founding fathers were alive today, they'd be buying feathers and boiling tar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: veronica

Having a little responsibility for their actions will prevent it just as effectively, and NOT cost the taxpayer anything at all.
Until they or their parent(s) can afford to pay for their own shots, I don't agree that it should be a cost born by the taxpayer either. People can and should be responsible for their own health and well being. If they are victims of themselves, too bad.


44 posted on 01/20/2007 2:24:39 PM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: steadfastconservative
It's troubling because it is based on the assumption that all 11-year old girls will soon be promiscuous and that, therefore, they must be vaccinated against this STD.

Assumption or not, like I said, why put it off?

It is also troubling because giving girls this vaccine is tacitly giving them permission to engage in immoral behavior.

I've been vaccinated against Hep A and Hep B, and have never felt that I have permission to share needles with Hepatitis patients. In fact, I don't think the vaccines I've received have informed my behavior at all.

45 posted on 01/20/2007 2:25:03 PM PST by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hetty_Fauxvert
"I don't understand why it is not also recommended that boys get the shots. If you vaccinated both sexes, it seems to me you'd have a better chance of getting rid of (or at least greatly reducing) this disease in a generation or two."

Probably because boys don't have vagina's and uteruses which is where the virus-disease manifests itself into cancer at a later time in the girls life.

46 posted on 01/20/2007 2:27:44 PM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye
HPV is a virus and viruses mutate. Think about how often the flu virus changes. The flu vaccine is always made up of the virus from the previous year and doesn't help all people.

Influenza is an RNA-based virus with a high mutation rate. HPV is a double-strand DNA virus with a much lower mutation rate.

47 posted on 01/20/2007 2:27:59 PM PST by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

They're trying to do this in Colorado,too--another conservative state. I would want my daughter to get this but I DON'T want the government forcing my daughter to get it--under the assumption that she will havve sex before marriage.

This is a whole lot like condoms in schools. We tacitly assume that our kids will start grooving well before marriage and so we try to "accomodate" their behavior. Condoms and HPV vaccines should be available--don't get me wrong--but they should be last restorts for those who don't follow the societal standard of abstinence.


48 posted on 01/20/2007 2:30:27 PM PST by Rawlings (Romney Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze

Much lower but still mutates.


49 posted on 01/20/2007 2:35:38 PM PST by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: zbigreddogz

I call them rinos or statists.


50 posted on 01/20/2007 2:46:14 PM PST by darkangel82 (Socialism is NOT an American value.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The original post is wrong about it's going to cost us. If it becomes mandatory, and everybody gets it, then along with everybody who was vaccinated and wasn't at risk, everybody who was at risk also got vaccinated. So now, nobody gets cervical cancer, or next to nobody. Think what that has to do to medicare and medicaid costs. The upfront cost of the vaccine pales in contrast to the downstream cost of treatment, even though many are vaccinated and fewer end up getting the cancer and needing treatment.

The vaccine might, tragically, come too late for a few of the most unfortunate girls who run into the wrong man in some insecure location, or who make one mistake and it's one mistake too many, or who get mickey finned or whatever. But age 11 ought to cover pretty much everybody.


51 posted on 01/20/2007 2:51:01 PM PST by lostlakehiker (Not So Fast There)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zbigreddogz

Actually, dog - "libertarian leaning conservatives are becoming "... well, LIBERTARIANS.

Not Democrats! (sheesh, where did you get THAT from?)


52 posted on 01/20/2007 2:54:30 PM PST by 4Liberty ( forced charity = theft)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: steadfastconservative
It's troubling because it is based on the assumption that all 11-year old girls will soon be promiscuous and that, therefore, they must be vaccinated against this STD. It is also troubling because giving girls this vaccine is tacitly giving them permission to engage in immoral behavior.

So does the birth control pill.

53 posted on 01/20/2007 2:56:20 PM PST by micho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TruthConquers
You know, that sounds like my Canadaian relatives that resent others ...

They just resent people who don't know how to spell Canadian.......oops, sorry, it's Saturday and I feel giddy.

FMCDH(BITS)

54 posted on 01/20/2007 2:56:40 PM PST by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

Ding ,ding, ding....that is a winner.

HPV doesn't require penetration for transmission. Genital contact will do it.


55 posted on 01/20/2007 3:05:09 PM PST by tomcorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

what about men? won't this prevent the infection of the virus in men? why not have hamilton test it out and all the members of congress try it first?


56 posted on 01/20/2007 4:04:30 PM PST by machogirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

it does have a disclaimer, its says "may" guard


57 posted on 01/20/2007 4:06:21 PM PST by machogirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: steadfastconservative
It is also troubling because giving girls this vaccine is tacitly giving them permission to engage in immoral behavior.

Let me tell you something about young girls..if they want to have sex, the thought of getting an STD will not stop them. I don't know how I feel about this issue, but I do not believe this will do anything about promiscuity.

58 posted on 01/20/2007 4:07:09 PM PST by Hildy (Words are mere bubbles of water...but deeds are drops of gold.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: machogirl; originalbuckeye
it does have a disclaimer, its says "may" guard

Abstinence before marriage followed by monogamy is 100% guaranteed to prevent ALL sexually transmitted diseases.

59 posted on 01/20/2007 4:13:47 PM PST by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Hildy; steadfastconservative
Let me tell you something about young girls..if they want to have sex, the thought of getting an STD will not stop them. I don't know how I feel about this issue, but I do not believe this will do anything about promiscuity.

Look at premarital sex rates over the past fifty years. With the introduction of birth control pills, the adjudication of infanticide and various other aspects of the "sexual revolution," premarital sex has gone from the rare exception to the decided norm. I find it difficult to believe that all of these efforts to remove the "risks" of teen sex haven't been a factor in increased promiscuity.

60 posted on 01/20/2007 4:19:48 PM PST by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson