Texas requires cancer vaccine for girls

  1. :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire

    AUSTIN, Texas - Bypassing the Legislature, Republican Gov. Rick Perry signed an order Friday making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls get vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/...ervical_cancer


    This infuriates me for many reasons.

    1. Who is he to make healthcare decisions for my child? It's not like HPV is a public health concern like measles, etc.

    2. The vaccine has only been on the market for a short time. How many other drugs have been pushed through only to be recalled a short time later? At least with Vioxx and the like, taking them was voluntary. All the parents and pre-teen girls in Texas are stuck. What's he going to say "Oops! Sorry! We didn't know."

    3. Merck (the manufacturer of said vaccine) made large contributions to his campaign. $6000.00 from their their political action committee went to his campaign directly. Not to mention the indirect funding via Women in Government. Hmm . . . . . conflict of interest?????

    Grrrrrrrr . . . . I hope Ed Rendell doesn't get any bright ideas from this!
    Last edit by NurseyBaby'05 on Feb 3, '07
    •  
  2. 105 Comments

  3. by   Jolie
    I'm with you 100%, NurseyBaby!

    I am an advocate of public health measures that are effective in preventing the spread of contagious or infectious diseases in the school setting. While the HPV vaccine has the potential to be beneficial to individuals, it will not prevent outbreaks of infectious disease on a widespread basis, so I don't believe it is proper to require it for school attendance.

    The older I get, the more I understand the intrusion of government and school influences on our families and children. I believe these measures are intentionally designed to take control away from parents and place it with outside "authorities" who seem to think they know better than us what is best for our children. Our school district recently began to require dental and eye exams for every entering student. While the goal of obtaining healthcare for children may seem admirable, it ultimately usurps parental authority without providing any public health benefit.
  4. by   elkpark
    I have heard reports from a few different sources that Merck is spending lots of $$$ to lobby states all over the country to make the vaccine mandatory, and to mandate that insurance companies be required to cover the cost, because, of course, they stand to make huge profits from it being required. Here is a link to one report:

    http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/01-3...5c78acacf.html

    I can think of a number of reasons why a state might or might not choose to make the vaccine mandatory (although it's not something I support, personally), but I hate to think the decision would be influenced by lobbying by the manufacturer of the vaccine.
  5. by   wtbcrna
    Quote from NurseyBaby'05
    :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire

    AUSTIN, Texas - Bypassing the Legislature, Republican Gov. Rick Perry signed an order Friday making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls get vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/...ervical_cancer


    This infuriates me for many reasons.

    1. Who is he to make healthcare decisions for my child? It's not like HPV is a public health concern like measles, etc.

    2. The vaccine has only been on the market for a short time. How many other drugs have been pushed through only to be recalled a short time later? At least with Vioxx and the like, taking them was voluntary. All the parents and pre-teen girls in Texas are stuck. What's he going to day "Oops! Sorry! We didn't know."

    3. Merck (the manufacturer of said vaccine) made large contributions to his campaign. $6000.00 from their their political action committee went to his campaign directly. Not to mention the indirect funding via Women in Government. Hmm . . . . . conflict of interest?????

    Grrrrrrrr . . . . I hope Ed Rendell doesn't get any bright ideas from this!

    I disagree if this can limit the spread of cervical cancer I am all for it. I have three girls and they will all be receiving the vaccine. I have to wonder would you be against a vaccine that would all but eliminate say skin cancers or maybe even breast cancer...? I think everyone is just stuck on the social stigma behind this and not what it can actually do to greatly reduce cervical cancer.

    Also the method to make this vaccine is the same as several other vaccines on the market with proven safety records. Here is FDA take on the vaccine.


    http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01385.html
  6. by   SmilingBluEyes
    I dislike strongly, mandating such an immunization. I am all for prevention, but not mandating this on our young girls.
  7. by   SmilingBluEyes
    Quote from elkpark
    I have heard reports from a few different sources that Merck is spending lots of $$$ to lobby states all over the country to make the vaccine mandatory, and to mandate that insurance companies be required to cover the cost, because, of course, they stand to make huge profits from it being required. Here is a link to one report:

    http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/01-3...5c78acacf.html

    I can think of a number of reasons why a state might or might not choose to make the vaccine mandatory (although it's not something I support, personally), but I hate to think the decision would be influenced by

    lobbying by the manufacturer of the vaccine.
    A major concern I have.
  8. by   wtbcrna
    Quote from SmilingBluEyes
    I dislike strongly, mandating such an immunization. I am all for prevention, but not mandating this on our young girls.
    I still don't understand why?? I don't see the difference in this and the MMR/HEP B, HEP A etc. The only difference I see is that there is the sexual connotation that goes with the vaccine.
    Last edit by wtbcrna on Feb 2, '07
  9. by   wtbcrna
    Quote from elkpark
    I have heard reports from a few different sources that Merck is spending lots of $$$ to lobby states all over the country to make the vaccine mandatory, and to mandate that insurance companies be required to cover the cost, because, of course, they stand to make huge profits from it being required. Here is a link to one report:

    http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/01-3...5c78acacf.html

    I can think of a number of reasons why a state might or might not choose to make the vaccine mandatory (although it's not something I support, personally), but I hate to think the decision would be influenced by lobbying by the manufacturer of the vaccine.
    Except for lobbying states to make it mandatory. This is just standard pharmceutical company practice to spend millions and millions of dollars to promote their new drugs....

    Don't get me wrong...I think drug companies are one of the biggest crooks in the healthcare industry, but what they are doing with this vaccine doesn't seem to be any different than any other drug promotion campaign.
  10. by   Jolie
    I plan to have my girls vaccinated against HPV, but I strongly oppose making it mandatory for school attendance. Public health principles call for vaccinating the "masses" against infectious diseases because doing so protects not only the individual, but the entire group against illnesses that are easily spread by casual contact, or can be spread without the knowledge of either party (Hepatitis A).

    Since HPV can only be transmitted thru sexual contact (which we certainly do not expect to be happening in our schools), it is NOT a vaccine which protects both the individual and the group from an easily contracted disease, or a disease that could be transmitted without both parties knowing of the risk.

    Don't misunderstand me...I believe there is a tremendous potential to spare women cervical cancer, but since that is an individual, and NOT a group risk of infectious disease, I don't believe that mandatory vaccination is appropriate. You mention a skin cancer vaccine. Melanoma vaccines do exist, but they are intended for prevention of recurrence of the disease, not primary prevention. If (and when) a melanoma vaccine becomes available for primary prevention, I would wholeheartedly recommend it to my children (as I am a melanoma survivor), but I would not support making that mandatory, either, since melanoma is not a contagious disease.

    Risk factors can be easily moderated for both melanoma and HPV, another reason why some individuals may reasonably choose not to be vaccinated.
  11. by   wtbcrna
    Quote from Jolie
    I plan to have my girls vaccinated against HPV, but I strongly oppose making it mandatory for school attendance. Public health principles call for vaccinating the "masses" against infectious diseases because doing so protects not only the individual, but the entire group against illnesses that are easily spread by casual contact, or can be spread without the knowledge of either party (Hepatitis A).

    Since HPV can only be transmitted thru sexual contact (which we certainly do not expect to be happening in our schools), it is NOT a vaccine which protects both the individual and the group from an easily contracted disease, or a disease that could be transmitted without both parties knowing of the risk.

    Don't misunderstand me...I believe there is a tremendous potential to spare women cervical cancer, but since that is an individual, and NOT a group risk of infectious disease, I don't believe that mandatory vaccination is appropriate. You mention a skin cancer vaccine. Melanoma vaccines do exist, but they are intended for prevention of recurrence of the disease, not primary prevention. If (and when) a melanoma vaccine becomes available for primary prevention, I would wholeheartedly recommend it to my children (as I am a melanoma survivor), but I would not support making that mandatory, either, since melanoma is not a contagious disease.

    Risk factors can be easily moderated for both melanoma and HPV, another reason why some individuals may reasonably choose not to be vaccinated.

    I guess I have a different take on the public health aspect of it... I work with a lot recent high school graduates and these kids do have sex and usually one or both of the partners have previously had sex with another partner. According to the statistics half of the US population will become infected with HPV during their lifetime and 6.2 million Americans become infected each year. I see this as a way to protect all women. This is very much a group problem/concern.
    As I have said before....I think the only issue really here is the social stigma concerning the sexual relation behind vaccine.
  12. by   Jolie
    I guess I have to agree to disagree. I don't believe the sexual stigma is the only reason to oppose the vaccine. I'm as Catholic as they come, and fully intend to vaccinate my daughters.

    My opposition is the attempt to remove personal choice from the equation. There are MANY things we could all do to improve our health and decrease our risk for a wide variety of disorders, such as not smoking, not drinking alcohol, not sunbathing, etc. But we do not allow our government officials to IMPOSE these lifestyle choices on us, because ultimately if we make unhealthy choices, we are harming ourselves, not anyone else. I believe the HPV vaccine falls into this same category. Also, not every woman is at risk for HPV infection. Those who abstain from intercourse or routinely use condoms are not at risk, and have no need for the vaccine.
  13. by   SmilingBluEyes
    Not a matter of sexual stigma, but powerful lobbying by a special interest. Not to mention vaccines are NOT without risk. I am already mandated to have a lot of them for my kids. I would rather not be forced to add this to my list.

    I don't live in TX, but this will likely set a precedent, and I dont' like it.
  14. by   wtbcrna
    Quote from Jolie
    I guess I have to agree to disagree. I don't believe the sexual stigma is the only reason to oppose the vaccine. I'm as Catholic as they come, and fully intend to vaccinate my daughters.

    My opposition is the attempt to remove personal choice from the equation. There are MANY things we could all do to improve our health and decrease our risk for a wide variety of disorders, such as not smoking, not drinking alcohol, not sunbathing, etc. But we do not allow our government officials to IMPOSE these lifestyle choices on us, because ultimately if we make unhealthy choices, we are harming ourselves, not anyone else. I believe the HPV vaccine falls into this same category. Also, not every woman is at risk for HPV infection. Those who abstain from intercourse or routinely use condoms are not at risk, and have no need for the vaccine.
    I will agree to disagree. I believe this vaccine is just like all the other ones that are required. I see all girls/kids and people in general getting their vaccines as a way of protecting my children and everyone else. By the way condoms are not 100% they can break. People can abstain from sex, but that is an unrealistic expectation. This is not a lifestyle choice it is a vaccine.
    I am glad public health officials are agreeing with me.
    Last edit by wtbcrna on Feb 2, '07

close