... especially in America.
Governor Rick Perry angrily defended his relationship with Merck & Co. and his executive order requiring that schoolgirls receive the drugmaker's vaccine against the sexually transmitted cervical-cancer virus. The Associated Press reported Wednesday that Perry's chief of staff had met with key aides about the vaccine on Oct. 16, the same day Merck's political action committee donated $5,000 to the governor's campaign.
Despite the donated money, I still think the governor did the right thing, that Gardasil (or an equivalent anti-HPV vaccine) should be mandatory, along with all the other vaccines that school children must receive in order to go to school. I mean, how is this vaccine different from the others? Is it because HPV is a sexually transmitted disease? Well, hell yes, you bet this is what the controversy is all about. I'll bet that a similar controversy would erupt if there was a vaccine against HIV.
Cited story.
.
- Log in to post comments
I agree the vaccine should be mandatory as other vacines are BUT what about other vaccines? 10 yrs. ago I was offered a Hepatitis-B vaccine at work where it was disclosed that 600+ full-time employees, at that time not all at our location, had HIV and nation-wide Hepatitis-B was running rampant,1 in 25. Scared me and I readily accepted. With all the different Hepatitises, vacines available for some and 10 yrs.later,is this another area that should be investgated & persued? hmmmmmm.....
I agree the vaccine should be mandatory as other vacines are BUT what about other vaccines? 10 yrs. ago I was offered a Hepatitis-B vaccine at work where it was disclosed that 600+ full-time employees, at that time not all at our location, had HIV and nation-wide Hepatitis-B was running rampant,1 in 25. Scared me and I readily accepted. With all the different Hepatitises, vacines available for some and 10 yrs.later,is this another area that should be investgated & persued? hmmmmmm.....SHAME on the "so-called" contributions! Wonder what the cost will be for that vaccine?!!!
Well, another difference is that this vaccine has only been on the market for a very short time. Unless I was really worried about my (hypothetical) daughter, I think I'd be inclined to wait a couple of years to see if any subtle problems emerge from the vaccine before subjecting her to it. And if the government mandates the vaccine, then it's accepting liability for any ensuing problems.
Has this been tested on children? No.
Now, why would anyone advocate forced treatment of children by an untested vaccine?
Why hasn't it been tested on children? Because we do not use our precious children as guinea pigs.
Except that Perry and Merck want to do exactly that.
Is that circular enough?
There are a two things going on with this issue in Texas.
First Gov Perry has attempted to go around the legislature on a few issues, like speeding up the permiting process on new coal-fired power plants. This speeds up the process but limits the review and reduces public participation. Democrats and enviros are upset by this.
The fact that Perry is going around normal legal procedures is making people who have no opinions on the policies unhappy.
Second in Texas, being conservative as it is, many people don't like the vaccine because they think it will encourage teenage and premarital sex. They still oppose the vaccinations even though the parents can freely opt their daughters out.
I agree with Perry's opinion that this vaccine should be mandatory. I also agree with the critics that he shouldn't be able to unilaterally enforce his opinion on the citizens of the state. Supporting the procedure that was used to put this in place is tantamount to accepting that not only Perry but his successors in the governor's office will make good decisions on their own. And frankly, Perry's track record doesn't reassure me on this, not to mention the track record of Texas in electing governors (W, anyone?). I don't even know at this point how much of the decision was made on the basis of public health and how much on the basis of the money Perry's buddy has pocketed from Merck.
Decisions like this should be made in the open, with public input and debate, not railroaded through by a power-addled politico. Yes, Perry made the right decision, and the Texas legislature probably will make the wrong one. The answer to that isn't to try to hand over the power to Perry, but to educate the public & their elected representatives on the issue. Yes, some Texas youths may someday die of cancer who could have been saved if this had been allowed to stand. But in the long run, we'll all be better off if we stay true to our democratic (little d!) principles. We're already seeing negative effects of this--in response to the uproar, Merck has canceled their lobbying efforts on behalf of this sort of initiative. This will make it much, much harder to get a measure like this passed anywhere else ... How many children from Wisconsin, New York, and elsewhere will die to pay for the lives saved in Texas?
(I'm a Texas resident and a Merck stockholder, so this thing looks good for me all around in the short-term. Long-term, the precedent scares me.)
Except that it has been tested on girls. So that kinda makes your argument a bit invalid, doesn't it?
A side from all the pros and cons of the issue. I find it interesting that a "Bribe" is now a "Donation"
Let's make sure that if young girls or women have sex outside marriage, or with an infected marriage partner, they run a higher risk of cancer. Why wait for God to sort it all out when we can? When you look at the wingnut religious right preachers here in Texas with their rictus grins and huge mansions, you just know they have a phone line right to God on moral matters and for insider stock market information. LET'S RODEO!