Question

art ll-Arguments Against the HPV Mandatory Vaccination Policy nce the executive order became public, the Texas legislators were besieged by phone calls, letters, emails, and personal confrontations from the public that he ord occasionally vaccinations were known to kill some people. Additional arguments included the following were widely reported i er on the basis of personal freedom, religious objection, and quoting "the well-known fact" that * HPv is a sexually transmitted disease; it is can only be spread by intima te contact. In this regard, it is unlike other diseases for which children in the public school system are required to be vaccina against (Irvine, 2007) ted . Gardasi ° would give young people a false sense of security and undermine abstinence-only education and the push to use prophylactics during intercourse. It also serves to challenge parental autonomy (Irvine, 2007) . Some members of the medical establishment have expressed concern with the lobbying efforts from e company that spent millions developing the vaccine would stand to reap a fortune if it Merck. Th were mandated for every girl in the U.S public school system (Irvine, 2007) : The vacine is nor cheap. The series of three shots cost 3360. This prompts the concern that only the affuent could afford it. Also, if the vaccination were publicly funded, some taxpayers may object on moral grounds (Irvine, 2007) . More research is needed to determine the long-term effects of the HPV vaccine (Irvine, 2 007) Governor Perry is not an unbiased politician acting in the best interests of his constiruents. Merck's lobbyist in Austin, Texas, Mike Toomey, was chief of staff for Governor Perry from 2002 to 2004, as well as for a Republican predecessor, William P. Clements. Merck also contributed to Perry's election campaign (AP, zoo7) . A recent medical study is evidence for prudence. Just 2.2% of women were carrying one of the two y to lead to cervical cancer, about half the rate found in earlier surveys. And just HPV strains most likel 34% of the women studied were infected with one of the four HPV strains t that the new vaccine protects against (USA Today, 2007) . The vaccine was approved only very recently. It could have adverse effects that will not manifest themselves until millions have been inoculated and until many years have passed. Researchers don't even know how long the vaccine offers protection (USA Today, 2007) Questions With the information provided, do you think Governor Pery did the right thing by mandating that all girls in the Texas public school system receive the HPV vaccination? Or is it too early to be mandating Gardasil Should it be offered to students but not required? How long should tests be conducted before the vaccine is deemed safe? 2. The series of shots costs $360. Should the cost of the immunization be borne by the state or by the 3. Do you think Governor Perry's decision stemmed solely from his concern for the health of his 4. Is it ethical for the company that creates a vaccine to lobby for its mandatory use in the public schools? individuals receiving the shots? constituents or did politics play a factor? Sex and Vaccination" by Zavrel and Herreid ge 4

help

Answer 1

1. According to me, Governor Perry has done the right decision regarding mandating that all girls in the Texas public school system should recieve HPV vaccination but was too early . Its an precaution to Cervical Cancer. The age of the girls must have been mentioned to avoid the confusion among the public because for them it is a disease which is caused by initiate contact so, it was impossible for them to vaccinate their small girls and it has to be mentioned that girls from 9ears of age can take vaccine any time till 26years.

The announcement is made early on the basis of the safety assessment of vaccine because it was not administered on any one and researchers were unaware of the side effects it could cause.

2. The cost of the vaccine should be borne by the state (government) as it is a public health program for the prevention of cervical cancer. People won't have money to afford it as it is costly and so it should be provided by government to prevent failure of the immunization program.

3. No, Governor Perry's decision wasn't solely from his concern for the health of his constituents . It was again a political play to gain the votes of the public and to become famous by initiating this health awareness . Secondly, it was done on behalf of money by getting the vaccine sold at a higher number in the name of health awareness program on HPV vaccination among girls in the school.

4. No ,its unethical for the company that manufactures this vaccine to lobby for its mandatory use in public school because first of all the vaccine was recently approved , it was not administered on any one and aslo researchers were not aware of the longevity of vaccine and its side effects it could cause . Secondly they were not selling it free of cost if it was genuinely a health initiative . It was just a money making programs by introducing a vaccine which was not used on anyone and was just recently approved.