Mandating Gardasil: A Gross Infringement On Parental Rights

standardnewswire.com ^ | 02/09/07 | Unknown

[LtdGovt]

Penile cancer rate is low, but anal cancer isn't as low. It doesn't make sense to me to say, "Boys are allowed to risk something this deadly, but girls aren't, because it happens more in girls."

But that does make economic sense. If 1 in 10,000 girls die because of disease A, while only 1 in 200,000,000 boys die because of that disease, it makes sense to inoculate the girls and not the boys. I'm exaggerating, but the number of lives saved should be a factor.

With respect to the other points in your post, you point to some legitimate concerns. But I'm more in opposition to a knee-jerk anti-vaccination and anti-government reaction, than in favor of this particular vaccine.

[LtdGovt]

No problem at all, it's my fault that I don't have more medical knowledge. And I understand the concerns that good parents like you have, I just find it tragic if ideologies of religion and sex prevent lives from being saved (of course, this doesn't apply to you, but I know it does to some).

[LtdGovt]

I made a (poor) calculation, and it does seem to make economic sense.

Okay. There are 150,000,000 women, 100,000,000 sexually active and 80,000,000 infected with HPV. That would mean that 3900 of them die from it every year, but over a 70-year period (life expecency, remember that it is the very young girls who get vaccinated), 273,000 of them will die.

The total cost of giving them all (at a very young age) a 350-dollar vaccine would be $52,5 billion, but it is streched over 70 years. The cost per life saved would be $192,308, which makes good economic sense. Most Western countries are willing to spend between half and one million dollars to save one life.

But don't force an injection on me or my daughter because some women are too stupid to go to the doctor once a year or two.

I don't believe in using force, unless there are extraordinary circumstances. You and your daughter should have the right to opt-out, or, alternatively, the right to opt-in if you do want the vaccine.

[Nevernow]

The rate is much more than that, but even then, boys are spreading it as well, meaning it would potentially save thousands of girls, not just boys, by innoculating boys too. In fact, it could completely wipe it out. If they truly want to save the most lives possible from STDs, condoms should be mandatory for anyone not trying to procreate. If they can't do that, which would save millions of people from STDs and thousands of people from fatalities related to STDs, why can they put a potentially harmful substance into women, and just women. The knee-jerk that's coming from this particular vaccine is the circumstances are so unusual. None of the circumstances warrant the measures being taken and it's sending off warning bells in people, and other people are just as scared as I am. Very few people are against all vaccines and the government mandating valid, safe, life-saving vaccines, but when it's something like this, there's a lot of knee-jerking. It's a scary thing. I believe the sexual element to this is an important factor too, not because of encouraging girls to have sex, I don't think it'll do that, but because it puts people in danger when HPV can be prevented by avoiding sex, so it's putting girls in danger without their consent and without giving them the choice to avoid it in other ways.

[Nevernow]

That's the problem with this state though. There is no opt-out in this bill.

[LtdGovt]

As far as I know, boys can get some form of cancer from this, but the risk isn't all that high. It wouldn't be cost-effective to give this vaccines to boys too.

. If they truly want to save the most lives possible from STDs, condoms should be mandatory for anyone not trying to procreate.

You can't really compare that to this. This is a one-time invasion unto the private lives of the people involved, while mandatory condom usage would be a constant and ongoing invasion.

[LtdGovt]

That's the problem with this state though. There is no opt-out in this bill.

There should be. But I don't think that there should be an opt-out for religious reasons.

When I was 12 years old, I needed an operation to stay alive. I will not go into the details, but if my parents were crackpot religious believers who would have refused me treatment, I would have died through no choice of my own. Now, is that fair? I'm all for religious freedom, but that is not fair to the child. Parents don't own the child.

[Tench_Coxe]

"Parents don't own the child."

Who does, in your mind? The State, maybe?
BTW, welcome to Free Republic.

[LtdGovt]

Who does, in your mind? The State, maybe?

No one does, certainly not the state. What about you? Do you think that parents own their children?

BTW, welcome to Free Republic.

Thank you.

[WV Mountain Mama]

You are missing a variable. Over a 70 year period, the number of women will continue to grow. Although you have figured out the number of deaths, you have not allotted for the increase in the growth of a female sexually active population. It will grow as the population grows. Also, there is absolutely no evidence, which the drug company concedes that the vaccine will work outside of 5-10 years. How many booster shots might be needed could be as many as 12 to 14 over the lifespan depending on the efficacy. I doubt these women will get a booster shot, as they would have to go to a doctor, from the CDC information, it appears they are not.

Again, the virus is found during a routine pap smear and treated in an out patient appointment.

[WV Mountain Mama]

This is a one-time invasion unto the private lives of the people involved

Is that a slippery slope we want to start down?

[LtdGovt]

You are missing a variable. Over a 70 year period, the number of women will continue to grow.

Certainly. And as the number of women grows, the number of deaths will grow. So I kept it simple, for my sake and yours, by not including the growth.

Also, there is absolutely no evidence, which the drug company concedes that the vaccine will work outside of 5-10 years.

If it does not work outside of 5-10 years, I'm afraid that it would not be cost-effective. We'll see.

[LtdGovt]

Is that a slippery slope we want to start down?

No. That's why I'm for either an opt-out, or an opt-in.

[Tench_Coxe]

"No one does, certainly not the state. What about you? Do you think that parents own their children?"

Parents are custodians of children until age 18, typically.
By mandating that the government can vaccinate the children without the consent of the parents, the state by proxy is assuming custodial responsibility of the children.
This is wrong.

The argument that there is some compelling reason for the State to have interest falls flat when people attempt to equate the papilloma virus with TB or other communicative diseases--the papilloma virus in this case is transmitted sexually, not by inhalation of vaporized sputum, casual contact, or incidental contact with an infected surface.

It is one thing for the State to tout the benefits of vaccinating, or (somewhat more coercively) to deny children's attendance at a public school, it is entirely another to place a blanket mandate REQUIRING the vaccination of children.

Government should not be involved in mandating this vaccine. This crap is the sort of thing one would see in China, not the US.

[WV Mountain Mama]

I hope the politicians let us wait and see. I remember when hormone replacement therapy was the rage. Everyone and especially drug companies were lauding the wonderful effects. Then, the number of breast cancer cases increased. Estrogen therapy is going by the wayside and breast cancer cases are declining. I haven't looked into it, but am curious how long the studies lasted before it was labeled the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Thankfully, my daughter is 2 and I will have some time before this directly affects us. I am just sickened though by how many times our rights are taken from us for the good of the people. I am surprised the government hasn't started regulating all you can eat buffets. There are far more buffet blasters that are morbidly obese and will die from costly obesity related illnesses than women from cervical cancer. I am surprised the government hasn't done anything about that. Even though no one in my family is overweight, I would be against that.

Government is not here to save us from ourselves. Common sense and healthy habits can not be legislated. Last year, the WV legislature felt really great. They passed a mandatory helmet law for quad riders. They beat their chests and patted themselves on their backs that they were going to save lives. Then, they were dumbfounded that more people died this year from quad accidents. Finally, on the news, a politician admitted that common sense can not be regulated by them. Nor can they change the terrain of the mountain state. Hello, it is called the mountain state for a reason!

[WV Mountain Mama]

btw, I appreciate your tone when discussing opposing sides. Many noobs are rude and resort to name calling at the first sign of a disagreement. Welcome to Free Republic.

We are somewhat arguing the same point, it needs to be opt in or opt out. I opted out of a different vaccine, as we felt that our children were not in an at risk group to need it, its benefits vs risks were not good either. That vaccine also has huge conflicts of interest in its history.

[eeevil conservative]

bookmark

[LtdGovt]

Parents are custodians of children until age 18, typically.

Yes, but do they own their children, like the fathers did in ancient Rome?

It is one thing for the State to tout the benefits of vaccinating, or (somewhat more coercively) to deny children's attendance at a public school, it is entirely another to place a blanket mandate REQUIRING the vaccination of children.

I favor it as an opt-out or opt-in vaccine. Denying a child's attendence at a public school would be too harsh, in my opinion.

[LtdGovt]

Government should not protect us from ourselves, I agree. We are rational adults. But it's different when it comes to children. I do think that children need to be saved from their own stupidity, some of the time.

That doesn't mean I favor government intrusion. But I make an exception for children.

[LtdGovt]

btw, I appreciate your tone when discussing opposing sides. Many noobs are rude and resort to name calling at the first sign of a disagreement. Welcome to Free Republic.

We are somewhat arguing the same point, it needs to be opt in or opt out. I opted out of a different vaccine, as we felt that our children were not in an at risk group to need it, its benefits vs risks were not good either. That vaccine also has huge conflicts of interest in its history.

Thank you, I appreciate your tone as well. I'm glad that we can have a rational discussion.

You clearly care about your children and their safety, I believe you should have an opt-out (or opt-in). But I think I caused some confusion. Early on, I stated that I found it dubious that a group named "Children of God for Life" was asking for a religious exception to these vaccines. It seems to me that they don't care as much about the saftey of these vaccines, as about the religious implications. And you know what that reminds me of? Parents who would deny their children medical care because their children's illness was divine will.

So I do favor a general opt-out (or opt-in), but not a religious one. Of course, that will be used as a religious opt-out, but that doesn't matter that much, since this virus does not immediately threaten the lives who are not inoculated. I just found it amusing that their practice was directly opposed to their preaching (Children of God for Life).