And preventing people from Cervical Cancer is somehow harmful? What 'good' does Cancer serve?
Would you be opposed to a mouthwash that prevents tooth decay as well? I don't feel that having my teeth rot out is in anyway contributing to the 'human good'. This is simply a byproduct of living in a country with the great capabilities of growth in medical science. BTW, the mouthwash is now available in England - and if there is a country on the face of the planet that needs this, it's England. But, next time I'm in London, I'm gonna get a shot of this.
Will this become mandated by law? No, because rottent teeth are typically not life threatening. However, Cervical Cancer is very much a life threatening illness. If we can prevent it, don't we have a duty to do so?
False premise, which goes to the heart of the Gardasil problem. Gardasil doesn't prevent cancer per se. It treats a handful of strains of the many viruses that can act as precursors to cervical cancers.
To make an intelligent medical decision, you have to compare the risk of the treatment against the risk of getting the disease. Even for the sexually incontinent, cervical cancer is to a degree preventable and treatable. According this whistle-blowing researcher, unless Obama successfully destroys the U.S. medical industry's system of tests and treatments, the danger from getting HPV is outweighed by the risks of taking Gardasil.
The problem with political payoffs is that a politician's liking for a pharma company's contribution can exceed his concern for your daughter's welfare. This is why it's unwise to involve the government in our routine medical decisions.
Not in my opinion. An argument can be made for having the government protect us from risks that no individual citizen could adequately protect himself against. For example, vaccination requirements for airborne diseases or building codes in crowded areas (where a building collapse might crush people on adjoining property).
The government should NOT be in the business from protecting us from risks we are reasonably capable of avoiding ourselves. By exercising some self-restraint and being careful in choosing partners, a woman can protect herself from STD's. People aren't left helpless against this threat without the strong hand of the government to guide them.
Without the vaccination mandate, will some women still get cervical cancer because they made stupid decisions? Most definitely. But that's her business, not mine. It's sad if she wants to throw her life away, but it's her life... not mine, and certainly not the government's.
It's not wise to empower the government to protect us from our own stupidity. Doing so opens the door for the government to regulate every aspect of our lives, "for our own good".
I just checked, in 2005 in the U.S., 3,924 women died of cervical cancer. In 2005 in the U.S., 40,000 people did in car crashes. So, if the government banned cars, look at all the lives that would be saved? By your argument, that’s the right thing to do. I really don’t think that’s any more ridiculous. We don’t even have an adequate idea how safe Gardasil is, or what kind of side effects it has.