Should Vaccination for HPV Be Mandated for Teenage Girls?
1) The group pushing for HPV vaccinations to become mandatory (by requiring it be added to the list of mandatory vaccinations in order to attend school) argues that compulsory vaccination can be justified on moral, scientific and public health grounds; respectively, the right of children as future adults to be protected from a sexually transmitted disease (that is linked to a deadly cancer), historical evidence that compulsory vaccinations have essentially annihilated diseases in the past, and the responsibility of the government to protect the population from contagious and potentially deadly diseases.
2) Those who oppose the movement present several arguments promoting caution about requiring vaccination for young girls, concluding that it would be premature to mandate vaccinations in order to attend school. They discuss the fact that we are operating with limited long-term data about efficacy and side effects, and also that the historical justifications for mandated vaccinations have not yet been met.
3) The ‘Yes’ side raises a valid point by informing us that statistically, an estimated 46% of high school students have sexual intercourse by the time they graduate and 75% of young people have sexual relations before marriage. They go on to discuss the ineffectiveness of abstinence programs, as evidenced by the aforementioned statistics, and conclude with informing the reader that 3.2 million adolescent girls have STIs, 18.3% of which are HPV infections.
Perhaps the most compelling argument that the ‘Yes’ side presents is to take us back to the Polio outbreak in the 1950s. More than 58,000 cases of polio were reported, with thousands of deaths. This outbreak spread wildly through public schools and was only contained by a compulsory Polio vaccination.
4) The ‘No’ side fires logical arguments right back at the reader, beginning with a detailed explanation about the lack of enough long-term studies regarding efficacy of the vaccination, and reminds us all that there have, in fact, been several unforeseen adverse reactions since it was approved that dictate more time and energy must be directed at studying side effects before we make it a requirement to vaccinate every young female in the country.
The ‘No’ side continues by stating that since HPV is undoubtedly transmitted through sexual activity, exposure to the disease is not directly related to school attendance (thus the argument against tying it into requiring it for schoolgirls), as well as the fact that all children who attend school simply do not have the exact same risk in regards to contracting the disease…each child has their own variant of eventual risk depending on religious beliefs, social interactions and personal decisions, as opposed to the Polio epidemic where all within the area of exposure were at risk.
5) The ‘Yes’ side is of the opinion that it is for the greater good to require this vaccination for all school-age girls, and goes as far as to say that even just failing to provide the vaccination is an act of malevolence towards our youth and their health.
They present the opinion that it would be unfair to withhold the vaccination to youths based on religious beliefs while providing it to other youths who hold differing values regarding sexual engagement, exposing the former to unnecessary suffering and harm.
6) The ‘No’ side strongly believes that the government risks public backlash if they
mandate this vaccination; they remind us of the small but passionate anti-vaccination movement (who would probably lead the way boycotting the vaccination) and also noting that younger generations don’t have the memories of past horrific disease epidemics, and this affects the populations opinion on compulsory vaccinations.
I found myself nodding my head as they discussed liberal opt-out provisions and the negative consequences that could follow…mandating this vaccination could lead to some battling for the right to decline such vaccinations, leading to some people perhaps declining other important vaccinations and causing a rise of disease transmission.
7) The ‘Yes’ side steps into some murky waters when they begin discussing whether the parents should have a right to intervene in regards to vaccinating their child; while not completely untrue, their assertion that neglecting to vaccinate their child against HPV is a direct threat on their child’s life (and therefore puts the right of vaccination in the governments hands) seems to be an exaggeration (seeing as the vaccination only protects against 70% of cancer-causing types of HPV, their child would still be susceptible to approximately 30% of those types of HPV even if vaccinated…making the concept of ‘safe’ in relation to ‘vaccinated’ is inaccurate) and somewhat misleading, I would even go as far as to say ‘fear-mongering’.
8) I disliked when the ‘No’ side stated that mandating this particular vaccine would cause enough backlash and negative public perception about compulsory vaccinations that it would have a negative effect on public health programs by promoting the “I choose not to vaccinate because it’s my body” mentality. I believe that the well-being and success of other public health programs and vaccinations are beside the point, and they are deliberately trying to cast it in a ‘first this, later that’ mentality (I suppose that’s how people historically persuade others to give up human rights), making it seem like mandating this vaccine is (albeit circuitously) the first step to deconstruction of compulsory vaccinations (and rise of other mostly-controlled diseases….interesting how both sides are using different arguments to make similar points).
9) To be honest, it’s difficult for me to pick a side…it was humorous to me, while I was reading both sides, to see how often I switched sides. I think there’s several concepts involved with this debate that will culminate in my overall opinion. Do I believe that, when overwhelming empirical evidence is provided that proves that lives are at immediate risk, it is for the greater good to require vaccinations? Yes! Do I personally believe in and endorse the HPV vaccination for adolescent females, recognizing that it reduces risk of later developing a deadly cancer? Yes! However, do I feel that in this particular case, the requirement of vaccination is logical in regards to school attendance? No. Perhaps there are other ways to mandate the vaccination (for example, in order to obtain birth control as a minor), but I do not believe that the government has the right to require this vaccination for school attendance (it really is difficult for me to come to this conclusion, as I feel very strongly that we should, in fact, be attempting to provide this vaccination to as many adolescents as possible), as its transmission is not directly linked to public school attendance and lacks the qualities of an deadly epidemic.
10) I believe the ‘No’ side was more empirical in their presentation; mainly in that we lack enough empirical data to move forward with mandating the vaccination. They described the short-term clinical trials and acquiesced that the vaccination had potential in reducing risk of cervical cancer, but were firm in conclusion that it is ethically irresponsible to mandate a vaccination when we have virtually no data regarding long term side effects or efficacy.
11) While the ‘Yes’ side appeared to be providing empirical data about why we should mandate this vaccination, in reality they were simply using a past historical example (the Polio epidemic) to create a foggy, uncertain and fear-based assumption about the dangers of a disease that is totally different (as far as method of transmission, and immediacy and likelihood of developing a life-threatening disease). Again, I do strongly believe that the HPV vaccination is important in reducing risk for cervical cancer, but in regards to mandating vaccination as with other deadly diseases, it’s apples and oranges. I sympathize with the ‘Yes’ side, and I can see that their argument is driven by a desire to protect minors (and our society in general) who are unable to protect themselves. The ‘Yes’ side subscribes to the Pathos method while the ‘No’ side subscribes to the Logos method.