How many of you approve of the new HPV vaccine becoming mandatory (with ability for parents to opt out)?

Question

I'm currently writing a paper over whether or not the HPV vaccine should become mandatory for girls before entering the sixth grade. Parents could opt out under most bills citing religious/philosophical beliefs. Opponents say that it would take away parents rights and it might increase promiscuity. Proponents want the option to be available for uninsured families (if it is mandatory the feds will pay for it) and they want to use it to decrease cervical cancer rates. I want to know what everyday people think about it. Are you for or againt it?

Answer 1

I think that is the way it should be, just so the parents know the consequences of not allowing their daughters to get the vaccine. .

Answer 2

I'm torn -- in theory it sounds like it should be great, why not protect our young women if we can? On the other hand, I'm highly skeptical of it's effectiveness, necessity and potential future complications. Either way, many arguments for and against just don't make sense to me.

First, since when has the government and health organizations been so concerned with women's health? Considering heart disease is the most commonly misdiagnosed and deadly disease for women, why are we not focusing on that?

Second, it seems a little odd to me that shortly after scientists and doctors reveal the HPV = cervical cancer there's a vaccine. However, we've been studying other forms of cancer for decades and are no where near such thing. In addition, if girls are required to get vaccinated, think of how much money those pharm. companies are going to make. Why wouldn't they (who are quite linked to the fed. government) press for it? It seems somewhat similar to a money-making scam at times.

Third, aren't we jumping in a little? Proponents are trying to force upon young girls and families a drug that has never been publicly used before, at least not in the United States. Why are we so quick to accept a vaccine we, the public, know very little about. The whole process seems too quick....it reminds me of the concept of "too good to be true." I'm a bit skeptical of what potential consequences this vaccine could have on the young girls who receive it. Why would we want to make an entire generation the guinea pig of a mysterious drug? It could go both ways, we could either save a girl, or harm a girl.

What if we took all of this and turned it into a choice, not a requirement. Since the government would have to put money towards vaccines for every young girl, there would be money available in general. Then, unused government money (from the families that opted out) could be used towareds better sex education to help prevent the spread of HPV in general?

And lastly, on a different side, I'm offended at those who think giving young girls the vaccine will make women more promiscuous. This argument is the weakest of any regarding this topic. It's sad some have so little faith in our young women. I think this argument could be fought with a good dose of education on both women and sex ed.

What does everyone else think?

Answer 3

I disapprove that some people think that this issue should even be considered for public debate.

The question that needs to be answered here is:
Where is the compelling State interest?
(Answer: There is no compelling State interest. There is no Lawful reason that would allow a State or school to exercise the authority to make the HPV vaccine mandatory. this question shouldn't even be on the table.)

I was shocked when I learned of this. As I understand it, HPV vaccines are now mandatory for middle-school girls in Texas, excepting (of course) persons whose Religious beliefs make them exempt.

What could possibly make anyone think that making this sort of thing mandatory should even be considered? To require a vaccine, it would have to be because of some compelling PUBLIC interest... Where is the compelling State interest? This should not even be a public policy question and shouldn't even be up for public debate.

Other vaccines that have been made "mandatory" for children attending public school have all been for diseases that are highly communicable thorugh every-day interaction--diseases that might easily be spread through a population that congregates regularly in public (such as in a school)--e.g., measles, mumps, small pox, etc. The position that a vaccine will likely help prevent highly contagious diseases from spreading through the general public should an outbreak occur is the ONLY legitimate justification for a State or public agency requiring that vaccine.

People who seem to think this vaccine should be manditory, generally, and that requiring it for school-age kids is just a convenient way to make everyone get it, don't seem to have the slightest clue about what makes how this authority can be Lawfully exercised.

The HPV vaccine does NOTHING to protect the general public or a public school population from a contagious disease, only the individual person who is injected, and only from being infected through a very private situation (sex). There is no possible way that HPV could be spread through regular personal interaction in a public place, such as at a public school. For this reason, there is NO "compelling state interest" and no reasonable justification exists for making this vaccine mandatory or required. This is not rightly a PUBLIC policy.

A parent has the primary and EXCLUSIVE right to administer medicines to their children. Neither a school nor a State can take this right away without Due Process of Law (which would involve a reason to press charges, a court case and a judge's decree.) A parent's natural right cannot be usurped or taken away merely be passing a statute or adopting a policy.

And growing up as a Christian Scientist, I know that no person can be required to take a vaccine or any other medicine or drug for ANY excuse. Also, it is not correct to look at the situation as if a "waiver" allows a parent to "opt out" their kid in spite of a mandatory vaccine. The correct way to consider this is that a Parent has an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to choose if their child injected with some medicine; and the paperwork for "religious exemption" is merely an acknowledgement that this RIGHT must be respected.

In other words, it isn't as if, by filling out some paper work, a person BECOMES exempt from a "manditory" vaccine. On the contrary, a person who does not agree with the policy IS exempt from the "requirement" by the simple fact that we each have a RIGHT to our "free excecise of religion", and any "manditory" vaccine "requirement" would not be Constitutional if it did not acknowledge its limitations and respect the fact that it is not enforceable on any person who opposes it for Religious reasons.

And to the folks who think making this manditory is OK, I ask, what Country are you from? Where were you educated? Have you ever read the Constitution of the United States of America? Where in there do you see this authority granted to States?

How about if you let me and my associates decide what should be maniditory for you and your children? Maybe we can come up with a vaccine that will prevent over-zealous do-gooders from forcing their good intentions on everyone else and infringing on the Lawfull Rights of other people.

Good ol' Ben Frankin said it best: "Those who would sacrifice Liberty for security deserve neither."

Answer 4

This should absolutely not be a mandatory vaccination. This is not like polio, or diphtheria, or any other highly contagious or genetic disease that must be prevented for the good of the people. Mandatory medical procedures, and vaccinations are scary. I believe that there has not been enough testing, or time for the vaccine. It was tested on a group of 20,000 women, and if you ask me, that is not a big enough group. I think that it should be tested on at least 100,000 women, and tracked over the years before it is even considered for a mandate. I would opt for my child to have the vaccine, because hey, one less thing to worry about, but it should not be forced on people, especially if the only way you can really get it is through sexual contact.

Answer 5

I am against it. It should be your choice if you get this vaccine or not. HPV is not the same as smallpox, mumps, or polio, which can cause major epidemics. While their is a benefit to prevent cervical cancer, I don't think that mandatory vaccinations are the best method. I do not buy the argument that mandatory vaccinations are going to lead to greater promiscuity. I feel it should be up to the parents whether their daughter receives this vaccine or not simply because HPV is not an epidemic risk like polio or smallpox.

Answer 6

I am for this...and this is why...promiscuity aside...we live in a mindset of "it will never happen to me"...fast forward 10 years...our little 14 y.o girl is now 24...married...and finds out hubby has been fooling around...uh..oh...she goes to gyn doctor and finds out not only was hubby unfaithful..but has left her with a gift that lasts forever...HPV...and this gift can kill her....If she had received this vaccine when she was a teen she would not have to face the possibility of future cancer now...If there is something out there that can prevent young ladies from having to go through this when they are 17, 27 or older, why would we not do this?

Answer 7

I'm amazed that the same people that think the whole Iraq war was for Halliburton's benefit fail to notice that the campaign to make this vaccine mandatory is funded by the manufacturer.

This drug may well be the next Salk vaccine, but it could also be the next Thalidomide.

If my child were in the age bracket, you bet I'd opt out. At gunpoint if necessary.

Answer 8

it should be mandatory. it protects others just like any other vaccine. do you not think that if there were a vaccine for HIV AIDS that it wouldn't be mandatory??? think of the people it could save. it would be good to make it mandatory in school, because after that there is really no way in keeping up with if everyone has gotten it. and even if these young girls aren't having sex, it will protect them on down the line.

Answer 9

my daughter is in the age bracket to get the vaccine BUT I have left the decision up to her..you see it has NOT been studied for long term effects on what if anything it does to the reproductive system..........and the ONLY cancer is catches is the one that is always tested for during the yearly exam.............so as she will always be having those then I feel that the vaccine is a moot point...............we have discussed it at length and whilst she knows I am not in favour of it IF she so wishes I will sign for her to have it [she is under 18] BUT under NO circumstances would I allow her to have been rounded up and done at such an early age....like stated above it would have been at gunpoint that they jabbed her with something that has been rushed in so quickly with basically no long term studies on effects yet to be published, I asked for copies when they gave out the info on all the GOOD it does.......and got a lot of foot shuffling and mumbles.

Regards

Answer 10

It should be offered, but not made mandatory. I've got three daughters and they all will get the vaccine. My wife had cirvical cancer caused by HPV back in 2003.

Answer 11

I absolutley dissaprove of the government shoving a NEW vaccine on our girls. They ONLY do this to make money with the BIG PHARMA companies. No clue if its safe. No long term studies have been done. NO clue if it even works. YES LET SHOVE MORE MERCURY INTO OUR KIDS AND MAKE IT MANDATORY. My daughter will NOT get this shot.