No but neither do I think antibiotics be MANDATED by the government.
Medical treatment should be between you and your doctor. The risks vs benefits explained (informed consent).
There have been people who have died on the operating table while having tonsils removed
The patient or guardian had to sign informed consent to the procedure after the risks vs benefits were explained. This is an excellent example of the individual hiring a Doctor and personally agreeing to treatment. No government mandate and your health is your personal private business.
Gardisil is different because the government mandates that you have to have it. The Doctor is now an agent of the government not your personal consultant. The Doctor has no incentive to individualize patient care. In fact the Doctor because he depends on government for his license actually now has a conflict of interest when it comes to explaining why you need the vaccine.
This is typical of the vaccine debate both sides polarize the issue. But the fact remains that Perry has no problem with government mandates the only issue seems to be whether someone can make a good enough argument. This is why we have TARP, Quantitative easing, it's why we are in the foreclosure mess. It seems that Perry has a low barrier to forcing people to do things against their will. So how many government regulations will he agree to because it 'benefits society'. Isn't that why the EPA is choking our economy right now? Isn't that why Obama dumped 500 million into a solar company with no chance of succeeding? Isn't that why we will print money to prop up Europe?
Government is the opiate of the masses. We think have the government do it and it will fix everything.
If that were true then Obama would be the greatest president ever rather than the worst.
The problem with Perry is that he sees government as a solution to a problem so where is the difference between him and Obama. Unless it's I get a liberal government that let's me keep my gun?
-- ... but neither do I think antibiotics be MANDATED by the government. --
There are probably some exceptions, but for the sake of simplicity, EVERY government mandate has exceptions; and the exceptions have exceptions too. Sometimes individual will is forced to bend to the public good. Nothing is risk free, and sometimes innocent people are harmed by government action; sometimes MORE innocent people are harmed by government inaction.
I think there is NO reasonable justification to make HPV vaccination mandatory, but I reach that position based on the rate of infection, the communicability, and the rate of complications per infection. By way of comparison, influenza is a bigger killer than HPV, and has similar quality in that most people who get it, cure it. Some people, unfortunately, die of it [flu, and HPV, both].
But I think the justification for mandatory immunization against measles, diphtheria, and other diseases is an appropriate balance. Especially since, in most states, a person can opt-out of ANY vaccine, and is ALWAYS excused if the person, or his family, is known to have a significant risk of adverse reaction.
As long as I am on my soap box, Perry's action is very troubling to me, for several reasons. It's unjustified public policy; he was willing to bypass not only the legislature, but also the administrative agency empowered to make those calls; his friendship with people in Merck does create at least an appearance of cronyism/favors for a friend; and he's been misleading in his self-defense (for example, "not mandatory, it had an opt-out").
I have nine words for you: Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Hepatitis, diptheria, tetanus, Smallpox, Polio, Rotovirus. All of these vaccinations have had instances where there has been a reaction to the inoculation. They have also saved millions of lives. The sub-culture that follows conjecture and non-scientific theory and forgoes these critical vaccines are responsible, currently, for the return of diseases that were all but wiped out. Polio is making a comeback due to blatant ignorance on the part of a few who ignore facts surrounding hundreds of millions of safely dispensed vaccines.
Sixty one million doses of Gardasil were dispensed up through 2010. There have been 17,500 reports of adverse reaction (ranging from injection site itch, headache, fever, lethargy, and 11 to 18 claimed cases of death). That is a better record than the aforementioned nine accepted vaccines.
I interested in where you draw the line for government interference in the decisions of parents for their children. Think about the following, as to whether you support government action or not for each case:
1) Mother wants to abort her 8-month-old child because she doesn’t want a kid.
2) Mother wants to abort her 7-month-old child because he was tested positive for a congenital birth defect that he probably own’t survive.
3) Parents refuse treatment for their newborn who has a congenital heart defect; he will die. The operation to save his life is 5% effective.
4) Same as 3, but the operation is 100% effective.
5) Parents refuse a life-saving blood transfusion for their child, because of their religious beliefs.
6) Parents refuse to put their child in an approved infant safety seat, because it’s none of government’s business how they drive their kid around.
7) Same as 6, but the mother has the 1-year-old in her lap while driving.
8) Parents live in an FLDS compound, but there is no evidence that they are doing anything wrong to their kids, except for teaching them a religion that believes in polygamy. The CDC wants to take the children.
9) A 14-year-old daughter falls in love with her 22-year-old teacher. THe parents meet with the teacher, decide he is good for their child, and lets them sleep together in their house as a common-law marriage (because legally they can’t get married).
10) A mother puts her 6-year-old son in a dress and sends him to school.
11) A vaccine for HPV is developed. For simplicity, it’s 100% effective against cervical cancer, and has no side effects. Government mandates the vaccine be given to every child before puberty, which will effectively eliminate all cervical cancer in our country in one generation.
I wonder how many people who reject the Gardasil vaccination would approve of government stepping in to save the newborn with a lifesaving operation, over the parent’s wishes.
But who different is that from government encouraging a vaccine that will certainly save some kid’s lives, and allowing a parental opt-out? In both cases government is encouraging/dictating a medical treatment that will certainly save children’s lives. In the one case, we can put a face on the child, in the other we don’t know which children will be saved, but we know they will be saved.
I’m not trying to make people change their mind about school-required vaccines. I am trying to make people see the nuance and complexity of the issue of when we allow government to step in. I think Perry made a mistake, but I think it was a perfectly understandable one from a pro-life perspective, and I don’t think it shows any untoward risk of him supporting Obamacare if he’s elected.