Required STD shots worry some parents

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
It actually sounds from the article like parents who want to apply for an exemption on "religious or philosophical grounds" will be able to. Most states already do allow that for various kinds of vaccinations. I'm not sure what the rationale behind that is, nor how they evaluate those applications--presumably that varies from state to state--but clearly it isn't treated the same way legally as refusing treatment for an existing condition.
 
Everyone can get irate about this but how many here felt the same way about parents who stopped their kids from getting the MMR vaccine because of the autism link campaign?
 
It's comparable in the right to refuse a vaccine for your child, in one case it is because the parent believes that it will encourage sexual activity (just like condoms, morning after pills and sex-ed) and the other because of a fear fuelled media campaign - if you view that as a right for a parent or guardian to consent (or not to) then in both cases it is allowable.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Firstly look at the green movement for anti-reason based sentimentalism, secondly ask yourself why liberal internationalism has been abandoned in favour for palaeocon realism?


no, not biting on that one.

i assume the subtext is global warming, and it's skeptics who are more akin to Creationists.

of course there's over-zealousness, but i don't think the comparison is apt.

liberal internationalism hasn't been abandoned, in fact we've witnessed what happens when it's betrayed for a utopian neo-colonialisim.
 
A_Wanderer said:
It's comparable in the right to refuse a vaccine for your child, in one case it is because the parent believes that it will encourage sexual activity (just like condoms, morning after pills and sex-ed) and the other because of a fear fuelled media campaign - if you view that as a right for a parent or guardian to consent (or not to) then in both cases it is allowable.



so ... it's not comparable ... :wink:
 
One is moral and one was fear of health.

One disappears with a little education. The other disappears when a life of warped and misguided "values".

Not comparible.
 
Does that mean that certain actions are only alright if their done for the right reasons? It would be alright to not get a child immunised for secular reasons but religious/moral objections are invalid?
 
Irvine511 said:



no, not biting on that one.

i assume the subtext is global warming, and it's skeptics who are more akin to Creationists.

of course there's over-zealousness, but i don't think the comparison is apt.

liberal internationalism hasn't been abandoned, in fact we've witnessed what happens when it's betrayed for a utopian neo-colonialisim.
It's 5 Off Topics by now.
- Prominent sceptics who are voracious against creationists and also sceptical of ecopocalypse picture painted by some greens do not make the same types of logical fallacies as creationists (they make entirely different ones - especially if they will only accept evidence that fits their picture). The argument wasn't directly to do with global warming (an accepted scientific theory for over a century) but rather the static and utopian view of the Earth that views every extinction or change as a deviation from an ideal state and doesn't comprehend that the world is always in a state of change (today an accellerated rate of of change).
- Liberal internationalism isn't betrayed if the players never had it in the first place (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice for instance) - it is when liberals start appealing to dictators for their stabilising element at the expense of llike minded dissidents.
 
Last edited:
anitram said:


But this is an entirely different situation.

Refusing medical treatment on religious grounds (which the courts have often disregarded in cases of minors anyway) is distinguishable from refusing medical treatment because you believe it may somehow alter your child's sense of morality.

but perhaps that the child losing her sense of morality can be labeled as coming from a sort of religious school of thought?
 
I'm religious and I still can't fathom this type of rationale. To me, it's like telling our kids that since we think drinking excessively is bad, they shouldn't wear seat belts because it would encourage them to drink and be reckless. Or, since we don't condone animal cruelty, we should never have pets or show kids how to treat animals, because it would just encourage them to kill the animal.

How fatalistic can people get?!
 
The logic is impeccable though - I mean ever since AIDS came about people just stopped becomming gay; it's a detterent to these people, probably even one with intelligent design.
 
Last edited:
LarryMullen's_POPAngel said:
If parents talk to their daughters beforehand, and stress the "you're less likely to get cancer" than the "hey guess what? go get freaky this weekend, you've earned it; you've had the vaccine!" factor, then maybe we wouldn't be so concerned in the first place. :rolleyes:

Exactly-and I dont know why some of these parents seemingly doubt their own influence and parenting abilities, and the intelligence and self-esteem of their own daughters-so much so that they are threatened by a vaccine. I think perhaps the time spent worrying about the vaccine could be better spent on your relationship with your child and in helping them develop the proper esteem and skills to deal with sexuality issues and all that is invoved with them. Of course parents can do all that and the kids will still have sex prematurely-but the odds are in favor of them not doing so if you do that with your child, I would think. I personally think something is askew when a parent thinks their daughter will run out and have sex if they get a vaccine to prevent cancer. If I was that age and my parent thought that about me, I would be hurt by that.

I heard on CNN last night that 18 other states are considering making the vaccine mandatory-and that basically if you are a teen in the early teen group and having sex you will get HPV.


Texas Gov. urged against cancer order

By LIZ AUSTIN PETERSON, Associated Press WriterMon Feb 5, 11:04 PM ET

Several key Republicans urged Gov. Rick Perry on Monday to rescind his executive order making Texas the first state to require girls to be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

Lawmakers should have been allowed to hear from doctors, scientists and patients before the state implemented such a sweeping mandate, said state Sen. Jane Nelson, chairwoman of the health and human services committee.

"This is not an emergency," said Nelson, adding that she plans to ask Attorney General Greg Abbott for an opinion on the legality of Perry's order. "It needs to be discussed and debated."

Three other Republican lawmakers filed bills that would override the mandate, and several others were working on similar legislation.

Perry defended his decision, saying his fellow conservatives were wrong to worry that mandating the vaccine will trample parents' rights and promote premarital sex.

"Providing the HPV vaccine doesn't promote sexual promiscuity any more than providing the Hepatitis B vaccine promotes drug use," Perry said in a statement. "If the medical community developed a vaccine for lung cancer, would the same critics oppose it claiming it would encourage smoking?"

Texas allows parents to opt out of inoculations by filing an affidavit objecting to the vaccine on religious or philosophical reasons, but critics say the order still interferes with parental rights.

"I don't think the government should ever presume to know better than the parents what to do with children," Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said.

http://keye.healthology.com/cancer/article190.htm?pg=2

"Although some questions remain as to how popular a vaccine against a sexually transmitted disease will be, a study published in September 2005 in the Journal of Adolescent Health showed that up to 80 percent of parents were in favor of having their child vaccinated against treatable sexually transmitted infections, like HPV. (90 percent were in favor of vaccinations against HIV and herpes, STDs that have no cure). And in a recent survey, only 11 percent of doctors felt that immunizing against the virus would encourage promiscuous sexual behavior."


Cervical cancer was once the most common cause of cancer death for American women. But the increased use of Pap screening has helped to reduce the death rate by 75 percent, as the test can detect precancerous changes in the lining of the cervix at a stage where the cancer is most curable. Still, it is estimated that over 10,000 cases of cervical cancer will be diagnosed this year, resulting in over 3,000 deaths

Any sexually active woman who has sexual contact with an infected partner is at risk for acquiring HPV, no matter how much protection is used. Even routine condom use does not decrease this risk, as the virus is spread through either through contact with the skin or mucous membranes of an infected partner. An HPV infection may cause visible genital warts, but an infection may be present even without such warning signs.

As there are over 100 strains of the HPV virus and only a few are known to be cancerous, most cases of HPV will never develop into cervical cancer. In fact, infections generally clear up by themselves, according to Laurie Markowitz, a medical epidemiologist for the Centers for Disease Control.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:


Exactly-and I dont know why some of these parents seemingly doubt their own influence and parenting abilities,



you know, that's a really perceptive point.

if a cancer vaccine is going to give your child a license to live like Paris Hilton, just how good a parent are you?
 
Maybe for some people it's just easier to focus all your concern on an outside thing such as a vaccine rather then face the more difficult reality of having honest and real communication with your child and doing all the work that is associated with that. I would never say that is the case for every parent who has such concerns about this vaccine, but it certainly is so much work to deal with that issue and all the outside influences that exist regarding sexuality. But of course that is part of the job description of parent.

I think perhaps some parents prefer to live in denial of the whole situation on a personal and family level, then they get all concerned about government interference.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Does that mean that certain actions are only alright if their done for the right reasons? It would be alright to not get a child immunised for secular reasons but religious/moral objections are invalid?

Whoever said that? You seem to be missing the point. I'm not sure how you label your child's health as a "secular" reason.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:

By LIZ AUSTIN PETERSON, Associated Press WriterMon Feb 5, 11:04 PM ET

"I don't think the government should ever presume to know better than the parents what to do with children," Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said.


HA!

Does Texas have a mandatory bike helmet law for kids?
 
That's just what I was thinking and failed to mention-what about all the numerous instances in which the government "interferes" with parenting?

Is it only a problem for some people when it comes to sex?
 
bonoishot said:
I didn't even know you could get a vaccine for this. Unless thats just in the US?

I believe the UK government is also planning on making this same vaccine mandatory. They were planning on giving it to 12 year olds (which would make sense as think about how many other vaccines you get in secondary school, it'd be easy to add another to the list). People also kicked up a bit of a fuss saying 12 year olds shouldn't be having sex so why do they need the vaccine and so on.

At least I think they were planning on all this. I could be confusing it with something else.

EDIT: Hold on, found a link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1864163,00.html So there were no government plans, sorry my mistake!
 
Last edited:
Liesje said:
Here's the CDC info on it, I'm just reading through it myself....

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm


I knew about it because there was a thread here a while back and there have been TV ad campaigns promoting the vaccine in the US. I'm going to my gyn for a yearly physical this week and was going to ask her about it.

Thanks for link. Am just reading through the info. Just checked out the companies website. Its not available in the UK. Might see if anything similar is available here. My friend is going to her gyn soon so shes going to ask. Her Mum died of cervical cancer so she would greatly support having something like this if there were no risks involved with the vaccine. :yes:
 
TheQuiet1 said:


I believe the UK government is also planning on making this same vaccine mandatory. They were planning on giving it to 12 year olds (which would make sense as think about how many other vaccines you get in secondary school, it'd be easy to add another to the list). People also kicked up a bit of a fuss saying 12 year olds shouldn't be having sex so why do they need the vaccine and so on.

At least I think they were planning on all this. I could be confusing it with something else.

EDIT: Hold on, found a link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1864163,00.html So there were no government plans, sorry my mistake!

Thanks for the link. :)
 
Okay so I called my dad just now to tell him I saw Flava-Flav in Honolulu. He asked if I was gonna get this vaccination. And...just to see what he'd say, I told him I refused, because it encouraged sexual promiscuity. After a long pause he cussed me out for my "stupidity."

Note: My old man is a conservative.
 
Redhotswami, I hope you don't take that vaccination as an excuse to be promiscuous with Flava Flav.
 
Whether I agree with the mandatory vaccination or not, I think this Star Telgram columnist makes several good points about the way that Governor Perry handled this all...

Perry needs to listen to will of folksBy Mitchell Schnurman
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
If Texas is to be the first state to mandate a vaccine against cervical cancer, shouldn't we talk about the merits first and get some public input from doctors and parents?

That's beyond obvious, except that Gov. Rick Perry short-circuited the process late Friday and ordered the vaccines for all girls entering sixth grade.

His executive order may be a courageous move for a politician, because Perry was willing to defy his traditional base of supporters. But it seems rash, even foolish, for an executive manager and elected leader.

Perry is championing a noble cause -- preventing cervical cancer -- but he's managed to enrage people on both sides by the way he's handled it.

The primary complaint isn't with Merck's vaccine against the human papillomavirus, or HPV. Most folks don't know enough about it to render a judgment, although they're surely inclined to embrace any treatment that saves lives.

Perry's problem is that he didn't let the public air out the issue and debate everything. People deserve a spirited discussion of test results, side effects, sexual politics, even Merck's money trail in Austin.

Maybe that would be divisive for the state. Maybe it would embarrass some lawmakers, including Perry, whose former top aide is a Merck lobbyist.

But democracy can handle it. And if the Legislature got stuck in neutral, as often happens in Austin, Perry could have issued an executive order in May.

This would have allowed him to trot out supporters of the vaccine and declare that public health has to transcend bickering politics. Even detractors would have had their say, and that alone is a valuable process.

"It's important to let people talk and to visibly listen," says Cal Jillson, who teaches political science at Southern Methodist University. "That lets some air out of the opposition."

A spokeswoman said Perry wanted to give state officials and others more time to prepare for the vaccine. But the rule is not scheduled to take effect until September, and Perry could have signaled his intentions without heading off a public debate -- if a few extra months are that vital.

Instead, Perry acted unilaterally. And prematurely in my view, considering that the Legislature is in session, and that it typically handles vaccination programs for the state.

As a result, Perry created a festering controversy and a lot of speculation about his motives. Many news reports recounted how Mike Toomey, Perry's chief of staff for two years, is now a Merck lobbyist.

The Houston Chronicle reported that Merck has donated $6,000 to Perry since 2005 and $38,000 to other legislators and lawmakers.

Merck is also banking on the HPV vaccine in a big way, hoping to get it adopted throughout the country. It reportedly can prevent most cervical cancer if young girls are inoculated before they become sexually active.

Last week, an advocacy group that often opposes vaccinations said it found serious side effects in the Merck drug. The next day, Perry announced his executive order.

So what exactly is the hurry?

Perry's decision also raises suspicions, because it runs counter to his history. Jillson says Perry has always promoted small government, lower taxes and parental control.

"This vaccine program is very big, very expensive and very intrusive," Jillson says. "And he's taking a beating on it."

The Merck connection interjects another money angle into the discussion.

And when it comes to public health, motives have to be beyond reproach, so people are confident in the science.

In business, most chief executives have the authority to adopt policies without consulting anyone. In practice, they usually meet with employees, experts, even customers, to gauge the broader sentiment and shore up support.

They may pay lip service to opposing views, but they don't lock them out. Smart politics is part of smart business.

In a speech Tuesday, Perry said, "I refuse to look a young woman in the eye 10 years from now who suffers from this form of cancer and tell her we could have stopped it, but we didn't."

That sounds sincere, yet it doesn't explain why the rest of the state shouldn't be involved in the discussion.

"This is a decision that should not be made by one person. It should be made by the Legislature," said Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville.

Twenty-six of the state's 31 senators agree, including one who introduced a bill on HPV vaccines.

They sent a letter to Perry, asking him to rescind his order and let the issue proceed in the Legislature.

Elsewhere, some longtime Perry supporters ripped the move and said he had circumvented the democratic process.

Perry has received kudos from surprising corners, including an editorial in Tuesday's New York Times that urged other states to follow Texas' path.

If the HPV vaccine saves lives, the ends may justify the means. But it didn't have to be that way, at least not yet.
 
I went to the doc for a physical today and asked her about the vaccine. She says I'm at such a non-existent risk (for reasons that don't need to be discussed here) that she wouldn't recommend it for me, unless insurance covered it and it was, say $10. However, I do think it makes far more sense for girls to start getting before they get into relationships and fooling around. It's actually a series of three shots. I will think about it more when they actually start getting their supply and the insurance company makes up it's mind...
 
Although I haven't seen any factual evidence against the vaccine I agree he didn't handle it the way a good governor would have.

But hey, it's Perry, he's a shit governor.
 
Back
Top Bottom