Controversy over HPV Vaccine

[Glenn the Great]

Here's an article for use as conversation piece: http://www.playfuls.com/news_006610_HPV_Vaccination_in_Young_Girls_Early_S exual_Life_Booster.html

Okay, this has pissed me off for quite awhile. I'm sick of the conservative attitude. Look down toward the bottom about how a girl's father objects to his daughter receiving this vaccine that would protect her from a deadly disease, on the grounds that it would cause her to "no longer have a reason for sexual abstinence."

[Beldaran]

While I disgree with this guy's morality and parenting in general, I support a parent's right to choose what the government injects into his child.

[Lilith]

I have a cervical cancer case at work and I get to read medical records all day! I guarantee these parents are ignorant douches. Even if you are pretty chaste/married etc, you can still get it, also bleeding to death out of your genitals and rectum is pretty awful.

[Beldaran]

these parents are ignorant douches.

I agree. However, a parent should still be able to say no when the government wants to inject his or her child with a chemical.

Today it's HPV vaccine. Tomorrow it's a mind altering drug that makes people docile and brainless. Oh wait...

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/457588/2/istockphoto_457588_old_television.jpg

[Lilith]

i choose free thought..............................

[Prrkitty]

I wish to God that vaccine had been available when I was a teenager. You can bet your sweet butt I'd have taken it in a heartbeat. The guy that raped me had HPV.

HPV can cause many versions/forms of female cancer. And how a parent can say they don't want their children protected from ANY form of cancer... is beyond me.

<blah> *just shakes my head*

[Tygore]

a girl's father objects to his daughter receiving this vaccine that would protect her from a deadly disease, on the grounds that it would cause her to "no longer have a reason for sexual abstinence."

Did women stop getting pregnant all of the sudden and I wasn't notified?

[Prrkitty]

Tygore... what those parents that are objecting to the vaccine are saying is they "think" it'll make their girls feel "more free" to do "the" deed and not have to worry about consequences. Which means those parents don't trust their girls.

But what the parents aren't thinking about is... what about the husbands their girls marry (and no I'm not pointing any fingers at guys). HPV can be dormant in the body/system for years and years. What if their daughters are virgins when they marry and their husbands aren't? That means the girls STILL aren't protected from what they could have been vaccinated from as a young girl.

[Glenn the Great]

Sometimes I get the feeling that conservatives (the religious ones in particular) would like to eliminate all diseases except for STDs, so as to deter "immoral sex."

[Tygore]

That was kind of what I was getting at, actually. My (admittedly unclear) point was that a vaccine is by no means a free pass to any consequences, and that as you said it's not always the girl's fault if the need arises. I support the philosophy of abstinence, yet by no means do I feel that said philosophy is a reason to abandon an otherwise reasonable vaccination.

[Beldaran]

On a somewhat related note, I'm constantly tormented by my desire to fuck every girl I see and my morbid fear of germs and STD's.

[AtmaWeapon]

I agree. However, a parent should still be able to say no when the government wants to inject his or her child with a chemical.

Today it's HPV vaccine. Tomorrow it's a mind altering drug that makes people docile and brainless. Oh wait...




The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another. Seriously Beldaran for a big-time smarty-man you sure do base a lot of your reasoning on fallacious positions. Maybe it's just Jesus clouding my logic but where I come from a point based on fallacy is a point not made.

Anyway I've watched this issue with a good bit of curiosity because I see the pros and cons as such:

Pros A pretty nasty terminal STD could be eradicated or at least reduced If mandated by the government it will be free/cheap

The three cons as I see them are more complicated and, in my view, have perfectly reasonable counterpoints.
Sometimes "thorough" clinical testing isn't enough and we realize the effects of our drug years later. A parent should have the freedom to choose whether their child receives a vaccination. This vaccination reduces the consequences of promiscuous behavior and therefore will lead to ALL teenage girls becoming whores.

The first point is sound and valid, and it takes little research to bring up examples. The only way to refute this point, in my opinion, is to adopt a utilitarian analysis of the situation. Compare the consequences to a side effect that has managed to evade the testing process so far to the consequences of reducing the rate of cancer-causing HPV and I believe it should stand to reason that the proper decision is to issue the vaccine. I could elaborate further on this analysis but doing so requires the injection of opinions and therefore would not stand in a logical analysis.

The second point is also sound and valid, but our government is based on precedents and there are already many mandatory vaccinations. Polio, MMR, Tetanus, and perhaps some others I don't remember offhand are required vaccinations for a child to enter school. All of these illnesses are life-threatening and the infection rate has been successfully reduced to minuscule levels via this gross invasion of a parent's rights. To apply Kant's reasoning to this argument, one must decide if the maxim "It is acceptable for a parent to subject their child to increased risks of a terminal illness" can be applied universally. I doubt many people would agree.

The third point is unsound and invalid. It is based upon the slippery slope fallacy because there is no evidence to suggest that decreased risk of a sexually transmitted disease has bearing on a girl's decision to hold to her family's opinions regarding premarital sex. (Is it possible for males to carry/transmit the disease? If so the stance is further weakened by constructing a hypothetical situation where the chaste virgin daughter marries a promiscuous male who then infects her with the disease.) This argument seems to be supported strongly by those who have an interest in promoting conservative values but there are many different problems that are the reason why the concept of abstinence is of decreasing popularity: it's not the natural state of humanity, it is much harder to keep news from spreading in modern times, and in general parents are failing to instill a sense of integrity within their children.

Am I missing any of the pros/cons here? I've been casually watching this debate from the start and honestly I haven't ever been able to figure out why there is so much opposition to it.

[AlexMax]

My opinion on the matter is that while there are perfectly reasonable reasons not to get your kid vaccinated, being afraid that it might cause your daughter to not worry about STD's is one of the more just plain stupid ones. That's not a parent playing 'concerned parent', it's parent playing 'control freak whose daughter will probably die from alcohool poisioning at their first week at college'.

So yeah, I agree with Atma's third point. But I didn't phrase it in such a smartyman answer. :cool:

[Beldaran]

I was making a joke about television. It was not my intention to make a slippery slope argument.

My argument is that the government should not be able to inject a child with chemicals against a parent's will.

You make a good point about the other vaccines though. I don't know. I don't really care.

[Aegix Drakan]

What the hell...? How does eliminating an STD increase the odds of premarital sex? I agree with Edgewor...uh..Tygore on this one. While abstinence is still the best policy (100% effective), there are still many cases, in which an STD can be transferred.

I do agree that the parents should have a say in what gets injected in to their kids, but I don't see why anyone would want to prevent their kids from being immunized against a particularily nasty disease. It's like saying "My kid is going to war, but I refuse to let him wear a bulletproof vest". It just makes no sense!

If you want to stop your kids from having premarital sex, just raise them right! I'm an 18 year old guy, and I have no inclination, nor ever had the inclination to do anything of the kind. I think the parents opposed the vaccine are just using this to excuse bad parenting. And also, the risk of possible STD's hasn't stopped people before,so why should it now?

but...I do think they should do more testing on possible long term side effects before they mass produce this. We don't want to cure on eepidemic and cause another.

***

0_0 at Prrkitty's story. My heart goes out to you.

And Beldaran, you are quite right about the TV. The government doesn't need anything more effective than that to make us all lazy couch potatoes.

[Prrkitty]

Aegix Drakan... thank you for your sentiments (hug). In 1988 I was in Stage 2 of what WOULD have been Stage 3 vaginal cancer IF I hadn't been treated (I won't go into any further details except in PM if someone wishes to know anything more).

It's scary when I think back on it but... life goes on and I'm healthy now (as far as that situation goes anyway) and all is well.

[Rainman]

Seriously Beldaran for a big-time smarty-man you sure do base a lot of your reasoning on fallacious positions. Maybe it's just Jesus clouding my logic but where I come from a point based on fallacy is a point not made.

Slippery Slope is only fallacious if there is no proof for it. I don't think it will lead to mind-altering drugs, but government has a long history of going a foot when you give them an inch.


Anyway I've watched this issue with a good bit of curiosity because I see the pros and cons as such:

Pros A pretty nasty terminal STD could be eradicated or at least reduced If mandated by the government it will be free/cheap

It will not be free or cheap. We will all pay for it one way or another. We can't yet make something for nothing.


The three cons as I see them are more complicated and, in my view, have perfectly reasonable counterpoints.
Sometimes "thorough" clinical testing isn't enough and we realize the effects of our drug years later. A parent should have the freedom to choose whether their child receives a vaccination. This vaccination reduces the consequences of promiscuous behavior and therefore will lead to ALL teenage girls becoming whores.

The first point is sound and valid, and it takes little research to bring up examples. The only way to refute this point, in my opinion, is to adopt a utilitarian analysis of the situation. Compare the consequences to a side effect that has managed to evade the testing process so far to the consequences of reducing the rate of cancer-causing HPV and I believe it should stand to reason that the proper decision is to issue the vaccine. I could elaborate further on this analysis but doing so requires the injection of opinions and therefore would not stand in a logical analysis.

I personally don't believe in forcing anyone to do something, well for most anything, but especially for something that may have harmful effects. I'd like to make it clear though that I would personally highly encourage the use of this vaccine. There is just a huge difference between what I think is right and what I think should be forced on other people.


The second point is also sound and valid, but our government is based on precedents and there are already many mandatory vaccinations. Polio, MMR, Tetanus, and perhaps some others I don't remember offhand are required vaccinations for a child to enter school. All of these illnesses are life-threatening and the infection rate has been successfully reduced to minuscule levels via this gross invasion of a parent's rights. To apply Kant's reasoning to this argument, one must decide if the maxim "It is acceptable for a parent to subject their child to increased risks of a terminal illness" can be applied universally. I doubt many people would agree.

Assuming something is right because it is a precedent is faulty reasoning. If the issue with vaccines were purely medical I might be inclined to make less of a fuss. Vaccines, however, conflict with many religious and philosophical beliefs. Some people believe diseases are part of gods plan. Some believe that conventional medicine is wrong. Schools should not force alternate beliefs on someone. Preventing parents from making dumb decisions for their kids is a ridiculous prospect. The government should not be in the business of baby sitting their citizens.


The third point is unsound and invalid. It is based upon the slippery slope fallacy because there is no evidence to suggest that decreased risk of a sexually transmitted disease has bearing on a girl's decision to hold to her family's opinions regarding premarital sex. (Is it possible for males to carry/transmit the disease? If so the stance is further weakened by constructing a hypothetical situation where the chaste virgin daughter marries a promiscuous male who then infects her with the disease.) This argument seems to be supported strongly by those who have an interest in promoting conservative values but there are many different problems that are the reason why the concept of abstinence is of decreasing popularity: it's not the natural state of humanity, it is much harder to keep news from spreading in modern times, and in general parents are failing to instill a sense of integrity within their children.

Agreed.

[AtmaWeapon]

Slippery Slope is only fallacious if there is no proof for it. I don't think it will lead to mind-altering drugs, but government has a long history of going a foot when you give them an inch.Correct thank you for reading the definition I provided, indicating I was already aware of this stipulation. Making an analogy still doesn't remove the slippery slope, as most of this "long history" comes from times when medical knowledge was such that lobotomies were prescribed for minor behavioral conditions and other silly practices that we are appalled by today. I do not disagree that it is possible the government could go down this slope, but I would like to point out this is not the first time the government has instituted mandatory vaccination against an illness.


It will not be free or cheap. We will all pay for it one way or another. We can't yet make something for nothing.I forgot about this crucial point; I'm curious to see where the funding would come from (I bet it rhymes with taxes!). However, I don't think it would take a very large tax to subsidize the cost as you get the series of vaccinations once and never need them again. I have no data on cost/proposed solutions though so I don't really wish to take this point further.


Assuming something is right because it is a precedent is faulty reasoning. If the issue with vaccines were purely medical I might be inclined to make less of a fuss. Vaccines, however, conflict with many religious and philosophical beliefs. Some people believe diseases are part of gods plan. Some believe that conventional medicine is wrong. Schools should not force alternate beliefs on someone. Preventing parents from making dumb decisions for their kids is a ridiculous prospect. The government should not be in the business of baby sitting their citizens.Accepting something by precedent is what our legal system is based upon. Brown v. Board of Education is important because it overturned a previous precedent which provided a legal precedent in support of segregation. Roe v. Wade is an important case for providing a legal basis for abortion. Jacobson v. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/vaccines/Jacobson_v_Massachusetts_brief.htm) is a case where the courts upheld the right of the state to require a vaccination.

The precedent I refer to is actually upheld in many, many cases and in fact strongly supported by the philosophical foundations of our government: that the rights of the individual are not to be protected above the rights of society. All of our most important freedoms are limited to an extent. One does not have the freedom to shout "fire" in a crowded venue; one does not have the freedom to engage in libel or slander; one does not have the freedom to openly practice religion in a government building. In this case, the need for society to be free of contagious disease is considered of higher importance than the individual's rights to oppose the vaccination. The government [i]can and does prevent parents from making "bad" decisions for their children; thousands of children are removed from abusive/careless parents each year. I interpret your argument as supporting an unlimited freedom for a parent to raise their child any way they see fit, and I believe this is a flimsy argument from both a philosophical and constitutional standpoint.

I think Beldaran would argue that this is an example of religion hindering scientific development, and I must agree. I do not adopt the stance of these people and I strongly believe that if it were God's plan to have HPV as an incurable illness then He wouldn't slip up and let us invent a vaccination. Furthermore, if there were divine opposition to the vaccinations, I believe it would follow more dire consequences would have come from them than the fact that I honestly cannot say I've ever met a person who had polio or the mumps.

People who seriously oppose vaccinations should develop some alternative means of preventing illness. The Jehovah's Witnesses have a religious opposition to the usage of blood transfusions, but instead of requesting that the entire medical system revert to a pre-transfusion state, they participated and contributed to research into bloodless surgery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodless_surgery). This is an example of religion enhancing man's knowledge and I commend this behavior.

[Rainman]

I forgot about this crucial point; I'm curious to see where the funding would come from (I bet it rhymes with taxes!). However, I don't think it would take a very large tax to subsidize the cost as you get the series of vaccinations once and never need them again. I have no data on cost/proposed solutions though so I don't really wish to take this point further.

The point is that the cost of vaccinations doesn't change no matter how it's funded. The only difference is who pays directly.



Accepting something by precedent is what our legal system is based upon. Brown v. Board of Education is important because it overturned a previous precedent which provided a legal precedent in support of segregation. Roe v. Wade is an important case for providing a legal basis for abortion. Jacobson v. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/vaccines/Jacobson_v_Massachusetts_brief.htm) is a case where the courts upheld the right of the state to require a vaccination.


I'm not talking about what the law says. I only care about what is moral. Legal precendent only says what some appointed judges thought on the matter.



The precedent I refer to is actually upheld in many, many cases and in fact strongly supported by the philosophical foundations of our government: that the rights of the individual are not to be protected above the rights of society. All of our most important freedoms are limited to an extent.


I don't see where you get "the rights of the individual are not to be protected above the rights of society" being the foundation of our government. From what I know it's the opposite of that. We are supposed to be a group of individual's with all possible rights (some of which as enumerated in the Constitution) granted to them. The government is supposed to intervene when those rights conflict.

Freedoms aren't really limited. We just have to accept consequences for exercising those freedoms like when they harm others. For example:


One does not have the freedom to shout "fire" in a crowded venue;

You have the freedom to shout fire, but you are responsible for any consequences like people being crush and trampled.



one does not have the freedom to engage in libel or slander;


You can say whatever you want about someone. They have the right to sue you/ press charges to clear his/her name.



one does not have the freedom to openly practice religion in a government building.

You can do whatever you want unless the practicing the religion is funded via the government. This is because taxpayers have the right not to fund things they don't believe in.



In this case, the need for society to be free of contagious disease is considered of higher importance than the individual's rights to oppose the vaccination.


As far as I can tell, the vaccine prevents disease for the person it's administered to. I don't see how this affects people taking the vaccination because they will be vaccinated.


The government [i]can and does prevent parents from making "bad" decisions for their children; thousands of children are removed from abusive/careless parents each year. I interpret your argument as supporting an unlimited freedom for a parent to raise their child any way they see fit, and I believe this is a flimsy argument from both a philosophical and constitutional standpoint.

Eh, the line between abuse and irresponsible parenting is a hard line to draw. It obvious that physical abuse is cause for taking the child away, but there has to be some point where parents are allowed to make bad decisions. Otherwise, we'd have a situation where the state is essentially raising the kids. It should be pointed out that HPV can be avoided through other means like safe sex practices. The vaccination is just a further measure in case other methods fail.



I think Beldaran would argue that this is an example of religion hindering scientific development, and I must agree. I do not adopt the stance of these people and I strongly believe that if it were God's plan to have HPV as an incurable illness then He wouldn't slip up and let us invent a vaccination. Furthermore, if there were divine opposition to the vaccinations, I believe it would follow more dire consequences would have come from them than the fact that I honestly cannot say I've ever met a person who had polio or the mumps.

People who seriously oppose vaccinations should develop some alternative means of preventing illness. The Jehovah's Witnesses have a religious opposition to the usage of blood transfusions, but instead of requesting that the entire medical system revert to a pre-transfusion state, they participated and contributed to research into bloodless surgery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodless_surgery). This is an example of religion enhancing man's knowledge and I commend this behavior.

I completely agree with you that taking the vaccine is the right thing to do. I just don't think it should be forced. I plan on furthering the cause of science through the marketplace of ideas rather than forcing it through government.

[MottZilla]

This vaccine should not be mandatory. These things can have very harmful side effects, it could possibly cause death in some people. The whole chicks becoming whores things is a retarded arguement. There's far more to worry about than just 1 STD, plenty more STDs and pregnancy to worry about too. But you cannot set the tone allowing government to force normal citizens to take experimental vaccines. Even if you have a biological/virus outbreak, you cannot give the government the right to go poking you with needles injecting shit.

Wether or not people take this vaccine should be left solely to the parents or of the woman getting it.

[The_Amaster]

I'm curious to see where the funding would come from (I bet it rhymes with taxes!).

Ohh, ohh...Um, raxes. No, slaxes, no..Hmmm......

Ok, seriously, the risk of STD's never stopped the girls who were ummm, not sure how to put this, umm...engaging in premarital and prelegal relations. I'm actually very conflicted on this.

From a moral standpoint, it's the right thing to do, as it helps save lives. At the same time we should be allowed to insist on what they put in kids. I know I never recieved some vaccines because my uncle was paralyzed at birth by a problem with one, and my mom was always afraid.

And from a logic angle, the fact that many girls(and guys) insist on condoms now shows that the consequences do matter, leading to the idea that a reduction of consequences will result in an increase of the action. Don't know if it's true or not, though....(I mean, if we cured all STDs and unwanted pregnancies and stuff, you can bet there'd be a jump in sex, but only one of them? I dunno)

[rock_nog]

Bah, I say... Firstly, how would an HPV vaccine be a deterrent against premarital sex, being that most kids aren't worried about HPV in the first place? Secondly, what about all the other STDs that DON'T have vaccines? Thirdly, Beldaran, I can see your point about the government not forcing vaccinations. On the other hand, though, I feel it's unfair that the girl should be subjected to the tyranny and stupidity of her own parents (and yes, I know this point has been raised already).

[AtmaWeapon]

Rainman a goodly portion of your arguments were based on semantics; allow me to illustrate.

You claim I have the right to libel and slander someone, but I have to face the consequences of the action. Having the right to do something means that there should be no legal consequences for me exercising the right. Following the logic you illustrate, it would be easy to pass a law that bans any detrimental comments about the government. Sure you still have the right to say that you think BU$H SUCKS, but you just have to face the legal consequences of saying it.

The very reason I would face criminal charges for yelling fire in a crowded venue (in fact this happened not once (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnsley_Public_Hall_Disaster) but at least twice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster)) is because this form of speech is harmful to the general public and therefore is not allowed.

I do acknowledge your point that the parents should have the choice, but I disagree. I do not understand why there is such strong opposition to this particular vaccine when there are several other mandatory vaccinations that seem to go unopposed. I feel like if I had a daughter I would want her to have this vaccination, so whether or not the government tells me the vaccination is mandatory does not necessarily affect me.

I'd like to see more about whether this vaccine is "experimental" as it has been claimed. My limited research seems to suggest the patent was applied for 10 years ago, and I hate to infer but that seems to suggest it has been tested for a 10 year period. The primary concern I have is that the vaccine was not tested on minors, but the FDA has certified it as safe for use on children as young as nine. We must balance our desire for continued medical safety research with our desire for medical results. I see an interesting parallel between medical research and software engineering: one of the fundamental problems with software engineering is there is absolutely no formal method to verify that a program contains no errors; I see in medicine as well there is no formal way to prove the safety of a drug in any reasonable amount of time.

[Glenn the Great]

I'm interested in learning more about people who oppose mandatory injections for non-STDs, especially the mandates that currently exist. Is this a large movement?

[AtmaWeapon]

I'm interested in learning more about people who oppose mandatory injections for non-STDs, especially the mandates that currently exist. Is this a large movement?That's the question I'm asking (unless that was directed at me). If there haven't been movements against other vaccinations, I'm curious why there is a sudden opposition other than OH GOD MY RIGHTS BACKBONE

[Glenn the Great]

That's the question I'm asking (unless that was directed at me). If there haven't been movements against other vaccinations, I'm curious why there is a sudden opposition other than OH GOD MY RIGHTS BACKBONE

Wasn't directed at you. I want to know also. Looks like I'm not alone in my not hearing of such a thing.