(I agree with cons on this one:) Required STD shots worry some parents

[Flabbergasted]

(Different Reasoning, but what the 'ell) Education yes. Mandatory no.

Required STD shots worry some parents

Texas governor orders cervical cancer vaccine for schoolgirls

• Vaccine order for schoolgirls worries some


Updated: 11:12 a.m. PT Feb 5, 2007
AUSTIN, Texas - Some conservatives and parents’ rights groups worry that requiring girls to get vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer would condone premarital sex and interfere with the way they raise their children.

By using an executive order that bypassed the Legislature, Republican Gov. Rick Perry — himself a conservative — on Friday avoided such opposition, making Texas the first state to mandate that schoolgirls get vaccinated against the virus.

Beginning in September 2008, girls entering the sixth grade will have to receive Gardasil, Merck & Co.’s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV.

Perry also directed state health authorities to make the vaccine available free to girls 9 to 18 who are uninsured or whose insurance does not cover vaccines. In addition, he ordered that Medicaid offer Gardasil to women ages 19 to 21.

Perry, a conservative Christian who opposes abortion and stem-cell research using embryonic cells, counts on the religious right for his political base. But he has said the cervical cancer vaccine is no different from the one that protects children against polio.

“The HPV vaccine provides us with an incredible opportunity to effectively target and prevent cervical cancer,” he said.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16975112/wid/11915773?GT1=9033

[Katherine Brengle]

1. I have to agree with him on this one. nt

[Flabbergasted]

3. Who? nt

[Katherine Brengle]

38. Sorry, Perry. nt

[PSPS]

2. You may agree, but you're still wrong

The inflammatory headline with the phrase "STD shots" just undermines the important public health implications of this.

Let me guess. You have no daughters.

Your kind of thinking would have us still dealing with polio and smallpox epidemics.

[Flabbergasted]

5. Actually I have a wonderful little six yr old daughter which makes me really angry at

the implication. Sorry but this one is crap..... And I'm holding my temper at that remark....

This caters to the the pharms!!! Executive Order? Bullshit.

[Sanity Claws]

4. I don't see the need to make this mandatory

I understand the reasons children need to be immunized before entering school. In school, they will close contact with many other children and spread measles and similar diseases by breathing, etc.
However, human papillomavirus is spread through sexual contact. The law does not require children to have sexual contact as it requires children to attend school.
I don't think the vaccine is something that should be required by the state. In fact, I think big pharmaceutical wants to make it mandatory in order to increase its profits.

I'll try to prepare myself against the incoming attacks.

[PSPS]

6. That is silly and you know it

It reminds me of the dullards who would refuse to discuss condom use with their sons because it might "endorse sexual activity." So, instead of protecting their children from the real-world risk of AIDS, they purposely put the kid at risk of a horrible disease to please some imaginary guy in the clouds.

That's not only nuts, its tantamount to child abuse.

[Flabbergasted]

9. Oh really.....

So I don't have a right to decide what needles go in my daughter?

[Hippo_Tron]

22. Compulsory vaccinations have been allowed since Jacobson v Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1905)

So, no you don't have the right to decide what needles go into your daughter.

[Sanity Claws]

11. I didn't say that the vaccine should not be discussed

All health matters should be taught to children, including how to protect themselves against STDs. However, that does not mean that the state should require teenage girls to be vaccinated against this particular virus. It's not a matter of state interest, since the state does not require teenagers to have sex.

[DemBones DemBones]

20. The poster talked about the reality that this HPV vaccine

will be a big moneymaker for Big Pharm and you're going off about AIDS. . . Interesting that you talk about "the dullards who would refuse to discuss condom use with their sons." You are aware that girls can get AIDS, too, right?

There are reasons for concern about mandatory use of the HPV vaccine, which I'll go into detail about at the bottom of the thread if you're interested.

[DemBones DemBones]

21. Deleted -- double post

[Flabbergasted]

7. yep exactly. nt

[katsy]

8. I'm in some sorry state.

Never thought that my distrust our corporate fascist government may affect my daughter.

Although she is about 4 or 5 years away from having to take this shot, I'll be keeping on eye on what the European countries have to say about this vaccine.

I'd feel better if the Europeans gave it their seal of approval as I can't trust a damned thing U.S. politicians and corporations have to say.

What a sorry state of affairs.

[Flabbergasted]

10. That would make a difference but I still would want to decide.

[katsy]

14. I'm with you on that. nt

[sandnsea]

15. They did, Europe, Australia, Canada..

-- USA
-- Australia
-- Brazil
-- Canada
-- European Union
-- Mexico
-- New Zealand

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=52526

[katsy]

17. I feel better about the vaccine knowing other countries have approved of it.

[AtomicKitten]

12. I have mixed emotions on this.

On one hand, it may be the only opportunity for young girls to get this important vaccination; on the other hand, I HATE the government telling us what to do. Oy vey.

[Flabbergasted]

13. You still have the option but not the choice! nt

[Orangepeel]

16. it's not REALLY mandatory.

"Of the 12 states proposing a mandate, all but Mississippi would allow families to opt out of the vaccine, either through existing laws addressing religious and philosophical objections or through clauses in the proposals. In Texas, for example, a parent would have to file an affidavit stating that he or she objected to the vaccine for religious or philosophical reasons."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/healthscience/stories/012106dntswgardasil.8ef9e3.html

They aren't grabbing girls in the hallway and forcibly injecting them. The order simply makes vaccination the default option with the burden on those that disagree to object.

[ripple]

18. Education is not enough

I was torn about this, too, until I really thought it through. The way I look at it is that HPV is a highly contagious public health risk and should be treated accordingly. I would certainly like to see more long-term studies about any potential risks of the vaccine itself, but in the end, I'm guessing the risks are probably outweighed by the risk of cervical cancer.

If there were an AIDS vaccine, I would want that to be mandatory, as well.

The STD aspect appears to be the main objection and to me, given that 99% of women will become sexually active at some point in their lives, that shouldn't be any basis for opposing the vaccine.

I hope parents who oppose allowing their daughters to receive this vaccine are also prepared to explain how they thought they were protecting them when in 20 or 30 years, they might be forced to watch their daughter fight (and perhaps die from) cervical cancer.

Denial won't stop the spread of HPV any more than denial has stopped the spread of AIDS. Let's take advantage of this huge medical breakthrough to make this life-saving vaccine available to tomorrow's women. After all, wouldn't we do the same for practically any other potentially life-ending illness (cancer, MS, AIDS, Alzheimer's, etc)?

[donheld]

19. This is not a conservative vs liberal issue

It's a big corportation vs average person issue.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. I'm sure some big corporations made money off of Polio and Measles Vaccines as well

That doesn't mean that they didn't have great benefits for the average person.

[DemBones DemBones]

31. Of course they made money, but it's only been

in the past twenty years or so that drug prices have skyrocketed. CEO salaries have gone through the roof since the first polio vaccine came out in the mid-Fifties.

As for benefits. . . Some research has suggested that many of the chronic disabling diseases like multiple sclerosis, lupus, fibromyalgia, that have become so common among baby boomers can be traced back to tainted polio vaccines. IIRC, measles vaccine is one of the vaccines that has been associated with the rise of autism cases in the past twenty or thirty years.

If either or both of those assertions prove to be true, it will show that many people were harmed by the vaccines.

Many people now living survived measles, mumps, rubella, and chicken pox without serious effects. Those diseases can have very serious effects, of course, and can cause death. It may be impossible to ever say whether it was better to have the diseases or to have the vaccine.

Many people now living also survived polio, although most people who had polio suffered a lot and many continue to suffer ("post-polio syndrome" has brought them new pain as they age.) On the other hand, many other people never got polio during the epidemics. Did the vaccine actually keep them from contracting polio after they received it or did they just have immune systems that were for some reason resistant to polio?

There's a lot we just don't know. I am definitely more suspicious of vaccines and medications than I once was.

[donheld]

36. True, but the requirement for those vaccines were not

pushed through by the vaccine maker. They were made a requirement because of the public.

[DemBones DemBones]

37. Good point. Parents lived in fear that their kids would

get polio and welcomed the vaccine. Of course, in the Fifties we hadn't experienced any cases of massive harm done by medications or vaccines.

[manic expression]

30. Then it wouldn't be an issue at all

if we would dismantle corporations altogether. That, alone, would solve many of our problems.

[ProudDad]

24. My first reaction is

this sounds like a real windfall for Merck -- big Pharma wins again...

Wonder how much they donated to Governer Goodhair's campaign...:shrug:

[DemBones DemBones]

27. Yep, and Merck is facing big losses in at least two class action suits

in which they will be found negligent for putting drugs on the market without adequate testing -- drugs that have caused serious health problems for many, many people.

[SaveElmer]

25. I agree with Perry on this one...

It is in the public interest, and in the childs interest...

Study after study shows abstinence programs do not work, and kids who have been through them end up having unprotected sex because they haven't been properly educated...

[DemBones DemBones]

26. The profits that Big Parhm will rake in should raise alarm bells.

They are not donating the vaccine, are they?

If my daughter were still school aged, I'd do a lot of research about this vaccine before I'd have her vaccinated. Big Pharm doesn't have a great track record about drug safety. Example: for over thirty years, women were given DES (diethylstilbesterol) to prevent miscarriages, even after it was known that it did nothing to prevent miscarriages. It did cause reproductive abnormalities in both sons and daughters exposed in utero, in the worst cases causing clear cell vaginal adenocarcinoma in young teenage girls. That's a rare cancer that is usually seen only in women over 60.

I believe it would be safer for girls/women to stay with the current protocol of being tested for HPV. Those who are infected then undergo more frequent Pap smears, thus detecting dysplasia, metaplasia, or even carcinoma in situ, all of which can be treated successfully, and usually without major surgery, when detected at an early stage.

Ensuring that all women have access to HPV testing and Pap smears could make deaths from cervical cancer a thing of the past. A public health initiative to do that would be highly effective.

Because the HPV vaccine hasn't been in use very long, there is no guarantee that vaccination will in fact prevent HPV in all women. It could give a false sense of security that would endanger women's health by making them think they don't need to bother with pelvic exams and Pap smears, which are dreaded by many young women.

This issue of mandatory vaccination is one that beings liberals and conservatives together, either for or against. It's being mandated by a conservative governor, after all.

[manic expression]

29. Then why don't we make the industry collectively/publicly owned?

that would solve the problem at its source.

[DemBones DemBones]

32. What, and be socialists??? Are you mad???

(That's a joke, folks.)

Seriously, we need to do something about capitalism gone wild, monopolies, etc. Getting it done will not be easy, though. As Gore Vidal has observed, we are a one party country today and that party is the party of the rich.

Dennis Kucinich, John Conyers, Henry Waxman, and most of the Black Congressional Congress are our best hopes but they're not media darlings.

The first thing we do is revive the Fairness Doctrine (as Kucinich has already proposed.) Getting rid of Tweety would be an excellent first step.

[manic expression]

35. Yes, something must be done

However, my feeling is that capitalism always "goes wild", it is in its nature. The people who stand to gain from going wild will go wild, provided there is the smallest factor to facilitate it. Basically, what we are seeing today is what capitalism naturally does. Such a system has no use or value.

While I see the validity of trying to change it from within the system (voting, etc...), there are many problems with this. The system itself caters to those who protect it, as would be expected. Therefore, it is practically impossible for a Kucinich or a Debs to win more than one primary, let alone the White House. Going through a government which is a product of capitalism is a difficult, if not vain, route to change capitalism (or better yet, destroy it).

In spite of this, I agree with your points.

[DemBones DemBones]

39. Don't you think that's true of all systems?

That they eventually go wild? My mother always said that communism was much like Christianity in intent but in practice people were too selfish to make communism work, someone always wanting more than his share.

As regards the power of one person, like Kucinich or Debs, FDR was spurred to create the Second New Deal in 1935 (more liberal than the original New Deal) because of Huey Long's popularity (based on his "Share the Wealth" program) and Long's plans to run for president against Roosevelt. Which suggests that we need a popular populist who'd be a real threat to the established political order, even if he (or she) never becomes president. Long influenced Roosevelt from the Senate, Kucinich could influence the next president from the House. (Obviously, nothing influences *, especially as he limps and quacks through the next two years.)

If Kucinich can get his message out as effectively as Long did, he should have a lot of support from fed-up Americans, and there are many fed-up Americans as the mid-term elections showed. Dennis won't get much help from the media but Huey didn't, either. The conservative media of his time called Long both a communist and a fascist, and a rube, etc. So he distributed his own newspaper and made radio addresses and personal appearances. With 7.5 million people belonging to "Share Our Wealth" clubs that met weekly to discuss Long's ideas, FDR couldn't ignore those ideas.

[manic expression]

41. No

Communism has never existed. Communism is stateless, borderless; socialism has existed, but that is not the same.

Socialism has worked quite well, even with capitalist attempts to destroy it. Cuba has better infant mortality rates than the US, higher literacy, universal housing and healthcare, more representation for the people and more. The USSR before 1928 was similarly good for the people.

John Reed was an American journalist in Russia to observe the events of the revolution, here are a few of his writings on the subject:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1918/soviets.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1921/01/russianow.htm

So socialist policies (communist policies) have been very beneficial for the people (there are many other examples I could use, including the Paris Commune of 1871, Kerala, Chiapas, etc...).

If I could make the comparison, I think communism is not unlike Christianity in that in some cases, it is misused and misinterpreted. However, what it really is and what it is mostly used for is undoubtedly good.

Forgive me, but the Great Depression saw a political landscape far different than today. FDR was even considering altering the SCOTUS to get his way; imagine the firestorm if a politician tried to do that tomorrow. I remember watching the Democratic party debates 4 years ago, and seeing Kucinich as by far the most impressive candidate when it came to the issues. Yet, what chance did he have? None. That's the reality of our political system, those who want to make positive changes, despite being in agreement with the majority of the population, have no chance. Just as importantly and more unfortunately, Long was too powerful, so he was killed; EVEN IF Kucinich had the chance to win the White House, he would never be allowed to take office.

[manic expression]

28. The concern that people seem to have is easily dealt with

people are worried that this is all due to profit, which may have some validity to it.

If that's the case, then do away with the system that promotes profit. Nationalize the production of the medicine! Get rid of the actual problem instead of trying to dance around the root of it. Addressing the actual issue, in this case not abolishing the private ownership of something that should be of the people, helps everyone.

[DemBones DemBones]

Yes, but that doesn't address the health concerns,

which are legitimate. No one can guarantee the safety of this vaccine (or any other vaccine or medication.) I think it's good that people are questioning this. In the past, people tended to accept what they were told by their doctors and by their government.

[manic expression]

34. Private ownership is one obstacle to this

as long as there is profit to be made, one cannot truly be sure of the safety of the vaccine. If there is no profit to be made, then there can be no concern over the objectivity of the testing.

In other words, the health dangers are minimized when the public has a vested interest in it being safe (as opposed to companies having only a vested interest in their own pocketbooks).

[DemBones DemBones]

40. It helps if regulatory agencies actually regulate, too.

I read something the other day from an FDA whistleblower, an M.D., who said the FDA approves virtually every drug that's submitted. He also had specific criticisms regarding the testing that was done but I can't recall all the details, will have to look it up.

[manic expression]

42. IMO, they don't and they won't

as long as they are a branch of a bourgeois government, they will cater to the bourgeoisie.

The FDA is beholden to a government which is beholden to the rich. Ultimately, they work for the wealthy and no one else. No amount of reform will change this equation, the only real answer is to do away with the power structure of the rich.

[DemBones DemBones]

33. Double post -- sorry

My laptop stutters.

[mhatrw]

43. PLEASE READ THIS POST IF YOU ARE AT ALL INFORMED ON THIS ISSUE!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=145744&mesg_id=145744