Texas first state to require HPV vaccine

[Littlelite]

i don't know what i think of mandatory vaccinations. it will not prevent all cervical cancer, it will only prevent cervical cancer that results from hpv.

and here's my beef with it. not the vaccine itself, but the way the commercials and advertisements are presenting this to the public. they refer to HPV as a COMMON VIRUS... kinda like a cold.

they don't bother letting people know that HPV is a SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE.

to me this is just like everything else... let's make it acceptable, le'ts make the public not think of it in negative terms.... after all, homosexuality is just another acceptable lifestyle, soft-porn on our tv screens is just a "healthy expression of sexuality"... and sexually transmitted diseases are nothing to be ashamed of.

it bothers me that society is being so brainwashed.

[/quote

I have to agree with exactly what you are saying, I stand up and give you a standing ovation. That is just what it is. Making sin acceptble, for everything that is being done under the sun, mankind covers it up with whatever makes it acceptble. One day though they will all stand before the Son of God. Then what will they say. YSIC Littlelite

[buckthesystem]

When I saw the words "required" and "mandated" I had horrible visions of "compulsory vaccinations", but I thought "that can't be right, what about the basic human right against forced medical treatment"?

Then I read the article and saw: "The governor

[Guest moonchild86]

Okay, a few things:

First, the law states that if a family wants to opt out of vaccinating their kids, they can.

However, as moonchild put it - why not?

The vaccine only works for ages 9-26, and it's better to get it at a younger age. As soon as it's approved for males, I'm sure it will be given to young boys as well. Remember, a female contracts the virus from a male partner (usually), who will show no symptoms.

The argument that this vaccine encourages promiscuity or sexual immorality is just silly. As someone else pointed out, you could be infected upon rape, or even from a husband who is unknowingly a carrier. Yes, you have to have sex to be infected with HPV, but since when do we judge that people should be vulnerable or invulnerable to cancer because of their personal choices, right or wrong? Even sons and daughters raised to be chaste may transgress. That doesn't mean that they should not be protected as best they can be. A wife can love a husband who has led a life of sexual excess and reformed, and she should know that she does not run the risk of cervical cancer for it. These are only a couple of examples. On the whole, especially with the option of non-vaccination for families with objections to the vaccine, I can't see how this is anything but a good thing.

I'm starting my shots in a month.

[IslandRose]

Edited to remove personal attacks.....

Shall we try this again?

[georgesbluegirl]

Okay, so let's remove all discussion of what's uncertain - the duration of the vaccination. The literature I've come across has stated that Gardasil will likely be effective for the long term, but many others are right to point out that statements such as that are hard to back up given the lack of long term studies (i.e. the newness of the vaccine).

So let's just shove that discussion to the side and assume for the sake of this argument that we KNOW that Gardasil is a one-time-only vaccination.

Are people saying that they would still certainly be opposed to this law in that case, even with the clear option of non-vaccination? What do you see to be harmful about potentially saving lives down the road with the HPV vaccine?

[Guest LadyC]

IF that were the case, then i'd still be opposed to the law, since the law ASSUMES that the majority of 9 to 11 year olds are sexually active.

note, i'm not opposed to the vaccine, provided it's available to ADULTS and BY CHOICE. or even to children at the choice of the parents. but i am never going to favor making it compulsory, or even compulsory-via-peer-pressure. and yes, i do mean peer pressure. i've seen parents be intimidated and cajoled into going against their better judgement regarding childhood vaccinations as well as other things.... in much the same way that this argument you present is doing.... by presenting it in such a way that it makes the parent who opposes it feel belittled, harassed, and uncompassionate.... making them feel that they are jeapordizing their children's lives out of religious zealotry.

and all the while, the elephant in the room is being totally overlooked. that the vaccine is for a sexually transmitted disease.

anyway, i'm of the opinion that it's unwise to assume anything regarding the longevity of something that hasn't been in existence long enough to study long term effects of.

i'd much rather err on the side of caution.

[georgesbluegirl]

i'd still be opposed to the law, since the law ASSUMES that the majority of 9 to 11 year olds are sexually active.

No, it doesn't. Basically it's just to ensure that girls get the vaccine before they even have the option of becoming sexually active. It doesn't assume anything about a nine year old's sexual life - one would hope that a nine year old wouldn't be anywhere near sexually active (although since eleven year olds regularly get pregnant, who knows...). It's just to get it out of the way at an early age, to get the necessary antibodies developed.

Further, I would argue against the idea that HPV as a sexually transmitted virus is being ignored - and again point out that you don't have to act "immorally" to contract it (and even if you do, you shouldn't have to suffer for it). The fact is that a huge percentage of sexually active women (within and without marriage) have some form of HPV, and many don't know. Requiring the vaccination for children is one way to ensure a better-protected population ten or twenty years down the road - not all women may have healthcare that will cover the vaccine in their adulthood, or some would not think of HPV as a serious enough risk to get a vaccine (how many people don't get free flu shots every year??), etc.

By the way, all the reports I've read or browsed have said that after five years, test subjects have shown no signs of decreased immunity/antibodies. Obviously we have to watch as time goes on...but I believe that's a good sign!