Should the law require girls to be vaccinated against Human Papillomavirus (hpv)?

Answer 1

I heard about that, and I was overjoyed that someone finally discovered something so great. It will definitely help a TON of people, and well protect many more women in days to come. I think I should be law, but many questions would arise:

-Is this inflicting on our personal choice, on our democracy?

-Who would pay for the vaccinations? (If its the State would be responsible, tax payers may complain)

-For the people who show side effects, what would happen to them? Must they sign a waver prior to the administration the the vaccine?

And of course, some could even begin saying "WOMEN'S CHOICE" or something like that, and could somehow even bring in pro-choice. I'm not saying I'm pro of con for pro-choice, but you could see the wave of problems that would arise. Overall, I think it would be a great idea, and could really help a lot of people, but realistically it would cause so many problems that politicians wouldn't touch it.

Answer 2

Probably not.

You can only ethically justify making a vaccine compulsory if someone refusing the vaccine puts another person's life or health at risk. This is the case with, say, measles vaccine among children in schools or day care, where it is not only your own vaccine that protects you but also the vaccination of those around you. This is because if there are enough unvaccinated kids then an epidemic could start, and affect the small number of vaccinated kids where the vaccine hasn't taken.

The mode of spread is relevant, too. It's very hard to stop yourself getting measles if half your class is infected, but there are behavioural actions (abstinence) you can take against HPV. The difficulty here, though, is that the assumptions of parents about their daughters virginity aren't always accurate. And as Gumdrop points out, sexual assault can also be a factor.

Girls do not usually directly infect other girls with HPV. Before you could argue for a compulsory vaccine you would need to be vaccinating boys as well (the vaccine hasn't been well tested amongst boys), and there would have to be clear evidence that vaccinating the whole population has a good prospect of eliminating the disease (cervical cancer) from the vaccinated population. We're still some way away from that, but getting HPV vaccine is still a good decision for individual girls to make.

Answer 3

If this vaccine prevented lung cancer, you'd never see this debate happening.

Should it be law? NO. But that depends on common sense prevailing, which given the number of times people have asked your question, it is NOT.

Here's the deal: vaccines only work if you take them BEFORE exposure to pathogens.

Setting bar as low as 9 is necessary because it is the age at which you will be able to protect the most people.

Will a 9-year-old run out the door and start sleeping around once she finishes out her series of injections? Likely NO (unless you did a crappy job of raising her).

But there are some ugly truths to consider. Girls get raped. Girls get molested. Girls can get HPV this way, and there was certainly nothing they could have done about it. Why should you let them suffer cancer and warts through such an indignity, when you knew fully well they could have been protected?

So in short, I don't believe there needs to be a law mandating vaccination for girls. HPV is not a disease spread by casual contact.

HOWEVER, I pity the girls whose parents are so naïve and selfish that they would rather put all their stock in a moral code than protect their children from a world that is far from perfect where people make mistakes and where people HURT other people.

And before anybody gets on my case about Gardasil being only for girls, the drug company is still in clinical trials to test its effectiveness in males, but because the proctective effects are less obvious in males, the trials are taking longer to complete. It should be available to males in the next year or two. It already is given to both genders in many places.

Answer 4

I don't know if it will ever be simply because if one girl in thousands has a weird reaction, her parents can sue the state. But it should be definitely recommended. Although, if it is helping the general population, then I suppose it could be required. Like the helmet law. Most schools already require a hepatitis shot, why would this be any different? Perhaps it should be required. Even a strong moral code couldn't stop a mother from passing hpv onto her child, who will then go on to have sex with other people, even if it's just his wife and spread it to her. So by vaccinating, it would stop the spread to even people with a "strong moral code" and over time, virtually wipe out the disease. Much like polio.

Answer 5

God I wish it would! I got it at age 17, had cervix frozen 3 times, to get rid of pre-cancer cells. Married to wonderful man for 10 years now, I had no idea what hpv was when I was teenager, But I wish I had been vaccinated. Then again if I had used protected sex won't have gone through the hell. Mine ended going past pre-cancer- now I can't have children. None of this is for anyone pity- just what is it 1 in 4 people carry hpv so if there is a vaccine- please get it- law or not.

Answer 6

It should no more be legally required than any other immunization. It is up to the parents of the girl to make the decision whether or not to have their daughter vaccinated. Those immunizations that are required for entry into public schools are required because they are communicable diseases that can be spread in a school environment. Cervical cancer and genital warts are not generally spread through a school environment.

Now, should parents vaccinate their daughters against HPV? I think so. But it should be the individual parents' decision whether or not to do so.

Answer 7

Why are people so anxious to give away their freedom by encouraging new laws. Aren't we smart enough to make some of our own decisions? This country is supposed to be about choice and freedom, but it is not. Laws are being passed for our "own protection". That is BS.

Answer 8

No.
You have a choice.
It wouldn't be a free country if they took all our choices, especially one like this, and made the decision for us.