What do you think of Texas requiring cervical cancer vaccine for all girls?

Question

Check out this link...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_he_me/cervical_cancer

Can we consider this to be Rebublicans helping Republicans??????

Answer 1

I think it's not a smart idea PERIOD.

It should still be optional.

The virus they are trying to protect against is Human papilloma viruses (HPV). It is a sexually transmitted disease. They are extremely common sexually transmitted infections. In more than 90 percent of cases, the infections are harmless and go away without treatment. However, certain types of HPV increase women’s risk for cancer of the cervix.

The study that was done on this Vaccine stated this:

"1,533 women, 41 developed HPV-16 infection -- all of these women were in the placebo group. Nine of the 41 women with HPV-16 infection went on to develop precancerous lesions (areas of abnormal tissue that may become cancerous). Twenty-two other women from the placebo group also developed precancerous lesions on their cervixes, but these were not associated with HPV-16.

By comparison, no one who got all three vaccine shots developed an HPV-16 infection. Twenty-two women receiving the vaccine did develop cervical abnormalities that can lead to cancer but these precancerous lesions were not associated with HPV-16."

Also, you should know this: "The vaccine tested in this study has several limitations, noted NCI’s Hildesheim. For one thing, the vaccine offers no protection against other types of HPV that can also cause cervical cancer. In addition, it’s unknown whether the vaccine’s protection against HPV-16 is long-lasting. Finally, it does not prevent HPV-16 infections already present at the time of vaccination from progressing to cancer."

So... since some of the injections do not prevent OTHER HPV infections, which can still lead to Cervical Cancer, and that no one knows how long the vaccinations actually last, I find that REQUIRING this vaccine for all girls is... well... STUPID.

It would be the equivalent of preventing teenage pregnancy by giving vasectomies (which ARE reversable) to all teen boys.

Answer 2

My opinion is that it is a very good idea (to have them vaccinated) and I plan on having my daughter do it when she is of age. However, I'm not sure that I agree the gov't should force anyone to do it. The opposition isn't about the risks of the vaccine, interestingly enough. This issue has received much opposition b/c, I guess, parents are afraid that, somehow, by giving their children a vaccine against an STD at such a young age, it will make them more likely to have sex? I don't see the logic and my daughter's health is much more important to me than keeping a somewhat lessened level of familiarity with sex away from my daughter. I'm pretty sure 12-year-olds know more about it than their parents anyway!

Answer 3

All vaccines are voluntary. The government is not going to take legal responsibility for the endless possible side-effects which include death. Vaccines are full of toxins not to mention the actual strain of HPV. There is always the possibility you will contract the disease from the vaccine itself. And the cervical cancer vaccine is not a vaccine against cancer. It is a vaccine against an STD. Texas should be teaching their children about abstinance and safe sex instead of 'forcing' them into getting vaccines that may or may not work, that may or may not kill them. The best solution is to do your homework on vaccines and make a decision you feel is right for you. No one can force you to be vaccinated.

Answer 4

In my opinion, again we have our government dictating how we run our lives under the guise of "protection". Though this new vaccine may be a wonderful new addition to our pharmacutical arsenal, so was the birth control pill. We don't require everyone to take the pill even though it prevents pregnancy and also has other health benefits for women. I believe that it should be the same way for the new cervical cancer vaccine. If I had a daughter, I would discuss it with her and make an educated decision from there.

Answer 5

I think that the benefits (prevention) outweigh the moral dilemma of the government trying to rule everyone's lives. It's naturally to learn about your sexuality, and no matter how far you set down the law, it doesn't mean your children will obey it. At least with the vaccine, girls will be protected from one of the hundreds of STDs out there....better than nothing at all!

Answer 6

i'm almost 13 and am actually moving 2 texas next year so this law would probably effect me in many ways. i think its good that they make the vaccine free and availible 2 evry girl who thinks they need it but they shouldn't make us take it. it'll make us think that its normal 2 have sex at this age and the government expects it which is just...idk. i think we should be able 2 talk 2 our parents about if we think we should get the vaccine just incase cuz u never know. but nothing should be forced on us. this is an issue between us and our parents not us and our government.

Answer 7

I think it's great! Whoever doesn't want to be protected from cancer is an idiot. If these girls have idiot parents, the law allows them to opt out and put their daughter at risk. Great parenting there!

Answer 8

This is EVERY BIT AS OUTRAGEOUS as the GOVERNMENT DICTATING to us that our OWN CHILDREN should be able to read before being allowed to graduate "high school"!

Shouldn't parents be allowed to make that decision?

If I want my daughter to be at a much higher risk for cancer, I should have that choice as a Texan, shouldn't I?