[Hildy]

Here's a question...let's say a parent opts out of getting this vaccine for their child. This child grows up and contracts the disease...is the parent culpable? I mean, if there are no side effects...why not? The child doesn't have to know when she's nine years old what the vaccine is for.

Everyone hopes their daughters make the good decisions, but if they don't, does that mean they deserve to get a terrible disease that they didn't have to? I really want a debate about his.

[GrandEagle]

I mean, if there are no side effects
But what if there are?
What about long term effects?
What about unintended consequences?

If the government is allowed to order this, what about the next thing that is "for your own good"?
What about parental authority?

Now... A Challenge for you.

Just try and find the drug information sheet that you get with any other drug, or immunization. The one that gives you the test information.
Remember, I'm not talking about the little "trust us" advertising pamphlet; I mean the one with all the fine print.
Ping me when you get your hands on it.

Cordially,
GE

[ShutUpandSing]

This drug has not been tested and followed over the long term. A friend of mine who worked STD at the CDC while this vaccine was being developed said she would not recommend it for her own daughters for that reason alone.

The drug was developed for high risk girls 11-15 who already had multiple sex partners. There was a risk/reward situation.

Do what you think is best, but what if your daughter were to develop tumors ten years from now?

[proudofthesouth]

But this is taking MORE of the responsibility AWAY from the parents. Hey, I come from a dysfunctional family. My parents weren't the best but they did make sure that I had all my shots. If this vaccine had been around 40 years ago my PARENTS would have made sure I got it - NOT the state!

[LongElegantLegs]

Anytime the medical community gets this excited about a drug, I get the creeps. Thalidomide and RotaShield leap immediately to mind.