The gov of Texas want to require mandatory vaccines for cervical cancer for all 11 and 12 year old girls. The three dose series costs $360 per patient. This will generate close to a half billion in revenue for the drug company. The gov tried to bypass the Texas state legislature so there would be no debate about costs, side effects, safety in children (it's an adult vaccine), or whether it should be optional.
Does the gov care about public health or did Merk buy him off?
2007-02-07 14:00:14 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070208/ap_on_he_me/cervical_cancer
2007-02-07 14:01:09 · update #1
Regardless of health risks, I think this is a vast overreach on the part of the governor. Here's why:
1. The HPV virus is only transmitted sexually - it's not a general public health risk.
2. If their state government felt so strongly, why not legislate a state mandate that health care providers must cover the vaccines in their insurance policies? There are already a whole host of similar mandates from state to state.
3. This vaccine has side effects such as dizziness, headaches, and even temporary BLINDNESS.
4. Won't handing out condoms in school accomplish the same thing? (*meant very tongue-in-cheek)
5. In this age of protecting our privacy rights, wouldn't this one be near the top of the list?!?!
6. It isn't government's job to protect us from every possible risk - especially those that can be avoided through good decision-making.
2007-02-07 14:12:52 · answer #1 · answered by Mr Brando 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is already a mandatory schedule of vaccines for children in the U.S.
My question is why the governor saw it necessary to bypass the state legislature. With the FDA's approval of Gardasil, it seems only rational to believe that the vaccine would've been made available anyways.
Obviously Merck would make a profit, there's no reasonable argument to fault them at all on this - they spent the money to research and introduce the drug, so obviously they expect to make a profit - capitalism.
The only question would be whether the governor pushed the vaccine because of unethical contributions by the company.
Coincidentally, the vaccine has thus proved pretty safe. As safe as any other currently required for children. Even in trials among girls aged 9 to 15, the most adverse effects were mild pain and tenderness at the site of application.
2007-02-07 22:20:29 · answer #2 · answered by buzzfeedbrenny 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think the Governor of Texas, while perhaps trying to protect girls from cervical cancer, has overstepped his bounds. The decision to have your child vaccinated should be left up to a parent. This is not a vaccination for a disease that is easily transmitted (like measles, mumps, or rubella). What worries me the most about him making the vaccine mandatory is what they might find in years to come in those who have been vaccinated. Sure, they say "it's safe," but they've said that about many drugs that have been taken off the market because of derogatory findings.. not to mention the lawsuits.
2007-02-07 22:17:48 · answer #3 · answered by Rebel-X 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I heard about it yesterday, but I still haven't heard who's PAYING that $360/patient fee... the State of Texas? If parents weren't allowed to opt out, I would be freaked by this. Since they are, I instead say, "WAY TO GO, PERRY!"
It's the first time I've said that, and he's been my governor since Bush left for DC. Apparently, cervical cancer is reaching epidemic proportions among some populations of teenaged girls, because of that virus.
The argument that girls will see it as the government approving of pre-marital sex scares me--I mean, the fact that people make that argument scares me.
2007-02-07 22:07:22 · answer #4 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
what is the long term safety factor of this vaccine?...there has been a history of medicine being behind and that the government making mandatory something that has a long term side effect...i remember mercury being in vaccines and the flamidimine babies of the 60's
2007-02-07 22:06:34 · answer #5 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Texas government is doing the right thing for the wrong reason.
2007-02-07 22:14:16 · answer #6 · answered by Duffman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What's even more amazing is that he's a Con. Gearing up for a presidential run maybe? Showing his concern for women.
I applaud him for doing it, but I'm afraid he'll get slapped down by the courts.
2007-02-07 22:02:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Nobody made a big deal about the Hepatitis shots that teens have to get.
2007-02-07 22:07:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He is a Republican, which means he can be bought out by lobbyists. He is also George W.'s pawn.
2007-02-07 22:40:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋