STD (HPV) Vaccine being mandated?

Question

I have been hearing it as the "cervical cancer" vaccine, and while several strains of HPV are the majority cause of the cancer, it doesn't deal with all the cancer. It has only been tested for 5 years or so, and there is no proof that it will continue to protect the women later in life. What about the vast amount of men infected? How much progress can be made with still half the population infected? Merk (the sole patent rights owner) has also been on a widespread lobbying campaign to get governors (about 20 something are considering to) to issue executive orders to mandate this. However, in the series of 3 shot treatments, it cost $360 per treatment. Some people say it will promote promiscuity as young girls will think they are protected from STDs, and that it doesn't promote abstinence. However it has been approved for girls as old as 26, so what is the hurry? Why mandate it, rather than let the parents choose, and provide financial assistance who do chose, but can't afford?

Answer 1

I find the controversy over this vaccine fascinating. I would be willing to bet that if prostate cancer were tied to the HPV in men and that a vaccine were discovered that eliminated 70% of cases of prostate cancer (those that resulted from the HPV) that this debate wouldn't even occur!

Your point about 1/2 the population still being infected with HPV (males) makes this vaccine all the more important for females. It can protect them from being infected from the males until such time as a vaccine can be found for males as well. This will serve to reduce the overall occurrence of HPV since vaccinated women will not be able to pass it on to male partners.

The reason that girls should be vaccinated early is that the vaccine works best and has the highest probability of preventing HPV infection if it is used prior to a woman's first sexual intercourse. After she is sexually active, she may have already contracted HPV and the vaccine would not be effective.

I find the argument about "promoting promiscuity" laughable. Since when has ANY vaccine been judged about its "moral stand?" We don't require any other vaccines (measles, mumps, chicken pox, whooping cough, etc) to justify their existence beyond preventing potentially serious and/or highly communicable diseases. Why is this vaccine held to some higher standard? It has been tested and approved by the FDA -- good enough for me and my 2 daughters!

Answer 2

You're right, let the parents choose. Will this just be one more drug that we will be hearing about 10+ years down the road that has created more problems than it will help? Anybody remember thalidomide? Why would this be mandated anyway? This is not a vaccine to prevent a contagious disease, it is to prevent the POSSIBILITY of a woman getting cervical cancer IF she contracts an STD, if I understand it correctly. NO WAY would I give my child something like that. They are talking about it for 9 year old girls!! That should be her choice to make when she is of age and informed..

Answer 3

This vaccine is most effective for women who have not yet been exposed to HPV. Thus, the vaccine is most useful for kids and teens who have not yet had sex. It's a preventative measure, not a treatment.

Answer 4

It's big business forcing the government to increase sales. I find it strange that they would force girls to get the vaccine to prevent cancer, what about teen pregnancy? "Oh, I'm 15 and have a baby but so long as I'm cancer free my life's just fine." Teens don't need the cold hand of science, they need better education, if you know where STD's come from, then you'll know how to avoid them.

Answer 5

It comes from venereal warts and causes cervical cancer in women.