I think Perry owns stock in the Merck company.
Yes, it over steps parental consent.
Do we know if this immunization will have any future side effects?
2007-02-06 03:34:50
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Getting it before 6th grade means they ARE getting the vaccine before high school-waiting until high school means more girls will not get the highest possible level of protection.
Some girls are sexually active (or are being abused sexually) way before high school; they need protection too.
This vaccine (if it does not have some horrible side effect) could be a good thing for all states to mandate.
Parents do have choice over whether to use vaccines or not. Most, if not all states have some sort of waiver parents can use. They may have to dig for information about the waiver since many school and medical officials do not like the idea of waivers and try to keep this information quiet.
My concern, which is the same concern about any vaccine, is the low success rate which lulls people into thinking they are protected. No vaccine is 100% effective. This one you speak of has only a 75% effective rate. That means a whopping 25% of women who get the vaccine and think themselves safe, are not. Educating both boys and girls, women and men, about safe sex practices (including abstinence) is still vitally important no matter how many vaccines are offered.
2007-02-06 11:51:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by debisbooked 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think the Texas governor made an intelligent decision. Kids already get immunized for polio, measles and other stuff, so why should this be any different. Some 6th grade girls have sex too, so the governor is trying to curtail a realistic threat. I simply don;t understand the logic of those who oppose this measure. Would they really rather retain this small amount of control over their children's lives than give them protection against a possibly fatal disease? Wake up. There is nothing to gain by opposing this measure.
2007-02-06 11:29:04
·
answer #3
·
answered by Subconsciousless 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
WOW! Well, I haven't heard of such a requirement in Texas. Anywhere for that matter. It may just be a good thing to do though. For one, children are becoming sexually active at a WAY younger rate than in the past. We have Middle School kids here that think it is okay to have oral because technically, they are still virgins. As for the vaccine, yes, I think they should have it. It should be a requirement. HPV is no joke and a lot of people are still uninformed about the virus.
2007-02-06 11:32:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by Roxy 1
·
2⤊
1⤋
I am of two minds on this. On one hand, what is the difference between this and the normal immunizations all children have to get to enter elementary school. If it can save lives, why not do it.
On the other hand, I like government interference in my life as little as possible. This is one more instance of government mandating us to do something, "for our own good."
I think if this didn't have to do with STD's, it probably wouldn't be such a touchy subject. What parent wants to think about their11-13 year old daughter being sexually active?
2007-02-06 11:27:14
·
answer #5
·
answered by bryanm 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't think it's appropriate for a State to mandate that vaccine. There are so many side effects and the point is, they will have a false sense of security. It clearly states it doesn't help in all cases or forms of the virus. This is something each woman needs to consider and each girl should talk over with her parents. For kids in the welfare system, they should have an advocate who will listen to them, councel them and help them make a decision for or against getting the shot. The governor of Texas is saying that those girls and their families don't have a say in their health care. This will get ugly!
2007-02-06 11:31:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by gigglings 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
This HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. It can lead to Cervical Cancer. They are assuming that these girls are going to have multiple partners. Young people are having sex earlier than ever before, which is why the young age. But then we are talking about 3 years. This is stepping over parental consent, but do you think your child will have sex before she is married? I would say that we must teach our children abstinence. Because genital warts isn't the only thing they have to worry about. Herpes, gonorrhea, AIDS, pregnancy, few among the many.
The Biblical view is to abstain. We must teach our children. Because God has given us this right, not the government.
2007-02-06 11:33:20
·
answer #7
·
answered by sunny 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Just like Plavix, Vioxx, and PhenPhen, when the long-term effects of this vaccine prove dangerous, these same officials will be pushing parents to sue the maker.
And I have to say I disagree with the lady above me. Giving them a vaccine for a disease they could only get through sexual acts is pretty much assuming they'll have sex.
You tell 'em tiny blonde. Polio and measles are contagious diseases we did well to vaccinate for. But if our daughters were not sexually active in 7th grade, this would not be such an issue.
We're basically telling our kids, it's okay for you to go out and have sex whenever you want. If you get pregnant, you can make the baby disappear and your mom will never know. We can protect you from STD's so you won't get sick. We will even give you free birth control so you can be as active as you want.
I hate to say it, but when I was a teen, the threat of my mother's wrath was all the sex education I needed. We make a show of educating our kids on the so-called dangers of sex as we simultaneously hand them protection from all the dangers. It's such a joke.
.
2007-02-06 11:25:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by cirque de lune 6
·
2⤊
3⤋
It doesn't say much for what the state of Texas considers their average age for losing virginity. Unless kids really are losing it at 12 on a regular basis, I think high school makes much more sense. This actually encourages the stereotype that Texas is nothing but a bunch of hicks. Losing it at such a young age is normally white trash and hick behavior.
I'm not saying that if they get the vaccine that they will start having sex, what I'm saying is that if the vaccine is mandatory, a lot of people will assume that they were already having sex.
2007-02-06 11:24:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by Tina 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
It is a vaccine against CANCER, for goodness sake. That we have a vaccine that can prevent it is a marvelous, very very good thing! The question of how the virus is spread is immaterial, as it is with other vaccines. Do you really think about how flu, measles, etc. are transmitted? No. What matters is the prevention of the disease. All vaccines are most effective when given before one might ever even come in contact with the virus, if possible. In this case, it is possible. As you said, it is spread mainly through sexual activity, so giving the vaccine before that activity commences makes sense. So, putting all of this "sex/vaccine/kids" thinking aside, the governor has the same rights to require vaccination as he does with any other vaccine, no more and no less.
2007-02-06 11:22:48
·
answer #10
·
answered by Steven D 5
·
3⤊
4⤋
I don't see what the big hubbub is about.
How is this any different from the state requiring other vaccinations prior to entering the public school system? Why is it OK for the state to require one to be inoculated against typhoid but requiring an inoculation against HPV is causing controversy?
Hey, if inoculating against HPV will stop the spread of a virus that ultimately causes cervical cancer, I'm all for it.
2007-02-06 11:26:36
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋