Taylor Proposing Mandating HPV Vaccine
This is still stirring debate in Madison.
In Wisconsin, state Sen. Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee) is preparing legislation that would require the HPV vaccine for all young girls. But some lawmakers, physicians and parents say many educational and financial obstacles must be addressed before it can be taken seriously. They also argue the vaccine is too new and needs more time to be tested.
A mandate requiring the vaccine for school enrollment isn’t expected to pass during this two-year legislative session, although it has stirred debate.
Note that ol’ Lena announced this bill about 6 weeks ago, and stated at the time that she had Pubbie co-sponsors.
The bill is STILL not filed, and she’s dropped the “Pubbie” chat.
Posted by dad29 on April 15, 2007 at 1217 hrs
Many thoughts occur.
1. If you are deeply worried about what “message” the vaccine sends to our children, you have proven yourself to be on an entirely different planet than me and I have no interest in anything you have to say on the entire subject.
2. If health professionals have concerns about how new the vaccine is, that I’d listen to.
3. I’m against this being mandatory. Parents should be able to opt out if they want to.
Posted by scott on April 15, 2007 at 1400 hrs
I’m not concerned with what message the vaccine sends to our children. I’m concerned with the health effects of the vaccine. I’ve looked into it because we have an 11 year old daughter, and after discussing the vaccine with our pediatrician, we have decided against injecting our daughter until more information is available.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2007 at 1429 hrs
2. If health professionals have concerns about how new the vaccine is, that I’d listen to.
The former (?) head of the CBC doesn’t support the mandate because of its incredibly short time out there. Apparently, it hasn’t been tested on women as young as those Lena would like to mandate it to. Everyone else seems to be backing away…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2007 at 1449 hrs
Wendy, I have no problem with your position. I refer to it in my first comment, item #3.
Anon, if the “former (?) head of the CBC” (whatever that is) turns out to be a well-respected health professional associated with a reputable organization, fine. If he/she/it turns out to be a rogue pro-life nut who’s peers and peer organizations disagree, then to heck with them.
Posted by scott on April 15, 2007 at 1453 hrs
Scott, you better get back on your medicine or go to another planet.
The cost is expensive- I believe around $400, so poor people may not be able to afford it- so do the taxpayers have to support it.
We require vaccines that may spread through the air, like polio and the others. Those diseases can be spread to many people through 1 person. The HPV is spread by mutual sexual contact (with the exceptions of rape)-If a vaccine for gonorrhea or syphilis come out, shall we mandate that as well?
I do agree with you that the govenment should not mandate it, so what is exactly your argument? If you don’t want it mandated then us “pro lifers” will opt out and if you want to your daughter to get it then that is your choice. Seems like you agree with us based on your logic.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2007 at 1519 hrs
That’s the price today, Dan. What will it be when we’ve placed orders for ten million doses? Besides, are you suggesting that we shouldn’t make insurance providers cover it? Of course we would - and we should. (Oh, but health care costs! Listen, the problem with health care costs in America have nothing to do with vaccines or preventative care.)
f a vaccine for gonorrhea or syphilis come out, shall we mandate that as well?
Yeah. I don’t see another way to eradicate the disease. Do you?
Tell me this. If five years from now, no reliable medical authority has any serious objection to the safety of the vaccine. Do you get your daughter immunized or not?
Posted by scott on April 15, 2007 at 1530 hrs
I have a daughter that is in the age group that you are talking about. It’s a good question. My only answer would be is that I would read all sides of the arguement and make my decesion. It would be based on my knowledge of the drug, side effects and knowledge of my daughter. Let’s put it this way, I hope I wouldn’t have to do it, but I certainly don’t want the government to order me to do it. It would be homeschooling time then.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2007 at 1622 hrs
Scott,
-Form a non-profit that offers this vaccine to those who desire it and cannot afford it. That way those of like mind with you can get the job done without having the state or federal governments extorting the money from those of us who don’t care to pay for such a program.
-If legislation must be passed, at least make it so parents of young girls have to OPT IN if they desire the vaccine.
Posted by slburri on April 15, 2007 at 1729 hrs
I would read all sides of the arguement and make my decesion.
No doubt you’ve done that for other vaccines.
Form a non-profit that offers this vaccine to those who desire it and cannot afford it.
I shouldn’t have to. We have a compelling collective interest in eradicating disease which warrants spending public money on vaccines. When people are sick we all pay one way or another. Having a healthy population benefits us all. We should all pay.
those of us who don’t care to pay for such a program.
Who would those people be, and what would be their objection? They like cancer? They abhor health? As far as “extorting,” you can whine somewhere else; we all pay for things in our taxes that we might not pay for individually. The Iraq war comes to mind. Follow?
at least make it so parents of young girls have to OPT IN if they desire the vaccine.
No. Putting that hurdle in front of health will ensure that too many become ill. This strategy fails to achieve the primary purpose: improving public health. I’d rather the hurdle be there for the minority of people who do not want it, not for the majority who do.
Posted by scott on April 15, 2007 at 1809 hrs
Ok - for the money aspect - the statisitcs show that there will be roughly 12.7 women in Wisconsin die in the next year from cervical cancer. There are roughly 81,000 women of age to receive the HPV vaccine at a cost of $360 per. Note - since the long-term effective range of the vaccine has not been proven past five years - this number my only be a fraction of the total cost. Anywho - the total cost of vaccinating those women will be in excess of $29 million. This then equtes to $2.3 million per life saved.
Now Scott will probably follow up by claiming that only cold-hearted fools would put a price on a life. But to extend these types of resources on an unproven drug on disease that kills 0.006% of the populaiton seems more like political grandstanding than smart public policy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2007 at 1925 hrs
Yeah. I don’t see another way to eradicate the disease. Do you?
Yes, scott. There is another way to eradicate diseases such as syphilis and gonorrhea…it’s called responsible sexuality.
This vaccine can only prevent a disease spread by sexual contact. Something sixth-grade girls (or whatever the age is) should NOT be having.
The argument that “they’re just going to do it anyway” is a great disservice to our youth and especially our young girls because sexual behavior causes more than physical disease - it creates emotional stresses and trauma as well.
So rather than shoring people (read: children) up for what seems to be a lifetime of promiscuity, teaching responsible sexual behaviors (read: abstinence) would help to eradicate these diseases.
Mandating a vaccine would not. And we’d opt out if it was OUR daughter.
Posted by Amy P. on April 15, 2007 at 1929 hrs
Well, mathman, since you’re an expert in medical cost/benefit analysis, why don’t you tell everyone what the cost per dose of the vaccine would become if most girls had one before high school? I’m sure you know that. If it’s not too much trouble, you can then go on to enlighten us all on how many women get cervical cancer who do not die.
Amy, let me ask you something. If I were to discover a vaccine for lung cancer, would you object to me administering it to people because you were concerned it might send smokers ‘the wrong message’?
When you’re daughter is dead at 47 because she didn’t exactly adhere to your idea of what proper sexuality is, will it be a comfort to you that you stood your ground firmly?
Posted by scott on April 15, 2007 at 1944 hrs
When you’re daughter is dead at 47 because she didn’t exactly adhere to your idea of what proper sexuality is, will it be a comfort to you that you stood your ground firmly?
Scott… Actually, the vaccine has only been shown to be effective for 5 years:
The length of vaccine protection (immunity) is usually not known when a vaccine is first introduced. So far, studies have found that vaccinated persons are protected for five years. More research is being done to find out how long protection will last, and if a booster dose of vaccine will be needed .
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/hpv/hpv-faqs.htm#8
Posted by Owen on April 15, 2007 at 1958 hrs
Scott, some basic health information for you: lung cancer is not communicable, unlike polio, german measles, whooping cough etc… Government should not force me to have me or child to have the vaccination. There is not a general health threat of lung cancer spreading to another through the air.
As for your last comment is needed because the comment is just pathetic. Maybe Amy is raising her child to be responsible. Maybe liberals like yourself are not capable of doing that.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2007 at 2000 hrs
On the contrary, my children are more responsible than half the adults I know. And if they vote for Democrats as I’ve told them to do, more responsible than most of the folks here.
I’m angry. That’s what’s going on here. I’m pissed off because this seems to be yet another example of moralizers putting ideology ahead of people’s lives.
Posted by scott on April 15, 2007 at 2011 hrs
Gee, Scott, chill out. The story was about government forcing our daughters to get the vaccine and you agree with that. So I guess you may be angry with yourself?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2007 at 2108 hrs
and you agree with that.
I did say you could opt out and gamble with your own kids’ lives if you want to. What more do you want?
Posted by scott on April 15, 2007 at 2114 hrs
You actually said “I’m against this being mandatory” and we can opt out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2007 at 2147 hrs
I’m lost. Have I inadvertently contradicted myself somewhere? Let me clarify. I want everyone to have to do this unless they opt out in writing. That makes it “not mandatory” and provides you with an aforementioned way to “opt out.” That is what I’m suggesting.
Unless a medical authority - trustworthy to me, not moralizing worry warts - says there’s reason to be more cautious.
Posted by scott on April 15, 2007 at 2150 hrs
Tell me this. If five years from now, no reliable medical authority has any serious objection to the safety of the vaccine. Do you get your daughter immunized or not?
Scott, does “DES” mean anything to you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstilbestrol#Associated_health_problems
20 years back, I had a serious relationship for several years with a DES daughter. The doctors had prescribed DES to her mother in the early 60’s after she had been unable to carry a baby to term due to numerous miscarriages.
Note it had been used to prevent miscarriages (among other things) for a good 20 years by the time my GF was born (and about 10 years after that before the linkage to birth defects became apparent and the FDA pulled it from the market).
Her female parts were - to put it politely - hosed. Her uterus had never fully developed past what a “normal” 13-year old girl’s should have been, and was malformed 30 degrees to one side.
Her ovaries functioned, but to an extreme - that joyous week or so of a woman’s period when she’s a ***** because her hormones are raging are not, as most guys think, simply because they’re elevated - as important is the ratio of estrogen to progesterone. I’m going from memory, but IIRC my GF said a ratio of 10:1 during that week creates all the “joys” that the ladies have to deal with every month (and we guys try to tiptoe around). Her OBGYN said she had a ratio somewhere around 100:1, which meant she was a 10x “that time of the month” female each and every month.
She should have been on progestin therapy to counteract this, but 1) even though we had extremely comprehensive health coverage (this was early 80’s), “birth control” was not covered and we couldn’t afford the $45/month out of pocket. 2) even if it would have been covered, she was extremely leery about taking another medication on some Dr’s advice (wonder why?), so even if our insurance company would have handed it to her free of charge (or the state of WI mandated it), I don’t know that she would have trusted that it wouldn’t make matters worse.
So no, Scott, I have absolutely NO intention of having my 13 year daughter given this questionable vaccine simply because some government official or liberal do-gooder thinks this is a brilliant idea. And I am just as adamantly against my tax dollars funding this mandate when I don’t believe that due diligence has been performed on potential side affects or unanticipated consequences of either the vaccine itself or the method in which it will be implemented.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2007 at 2348 hrs
Unless a medical authority - trustworthy to me, not moralizing worry warts - says there’s reason to be more cautious.
Does the chair of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices count?
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=43233
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 16, 2007 at 0023 hrs
Let me tell you about someone I didn’t date, Bob. I didn’t date a woman who had Polio. Nor a woman who had any of the other diseases that people are routinely vaccinated against.
Posted by scott on April 16, 2007 at 0634 hrs
Scott, how is that relevant? I’ve never dated a woman with polio either.
Dating someone with HPV (or being in the same classroom with them) gives a person exactly zero chance of contracting HPV. Until a person makes the choice to have sex with an infected person, they cannot contract the disease, unlike polio, measles, smallpox, etc which can be contracted through casual contact.
My point above was that even after 20+ years, there were unanticipated consequences to taking a FDA-approved drug. The studies done so far on Gardasil are extremely minimal IMO considering the scope of its proposed usage. Can you respond to that point without going down bunny holes? A cynic could remark that Merck has some type of profit motive with all the lobbying they’ve been doing for these types of mandatory vaccination laws.
I also note you did not reply to my second point, so I’ll ask you directly:
You asked for a “trustworthy to me” medical official who had reservations about mandatory HPV vaccinations. I provided one in the link above.
Do you consider a high-ranking CDC official a “trustworthy medical authority”? A simple Yes or No will suffice.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 16, 2007 at 0755 hrs
Scott, how is that relevant? I’ve never dated a woman with polio either.
Really? Why not, do you figure?
Listen, let me spell it out for you. You implied that it was relevant that you dated a woman who had had some negative health effects from a medical treatment that was thought to be good preventative care. I guess by that you mean medical science is untrustworthy. Therefore, I point out that you have never dated a woman with Polio, either. (Nor one afflicted with a dozen other diseases that medicine has cured or prevented.) Therefore, we should trust medical science. Works both ways, no? Only I think there’s more evidence on my side than on yours.
Sure, he sounds trustworthy. I’m just waiting to find out the part of hte story you’re not telling me. Such as the fact that he’s on the payroll of some nut conservative thin-tank or that his opinion is at odds with the majority of other medical decision-making bodies. But barring that, sure. Seems like his opinion is important.
Posted by scott on April 16, 2007 at 0828 hrs
When you’re daughter is dead at 47 because she didn’t exactly adhere to your idea of what proper sexuality is, will it be a comfort to you that you stood your ground firmly?
Gee scott, way to be mature about this debate.
I am a firm believer that teaching children responsible sexuality (i.e., abstinence until marriage) is possible, and that presuming teaching abstinence is futile does a great disservice to children - especially girls (as I said above).
Not that it would matter to you, but my friends and I were all raised by parents who taught us sexual responsibility and morals. We waited until marriage, and none of us had to deal with the repercussions of premarital sex. So we’re proof that it IS possible to raise children to be chaste until marriage.
Also, if a grown woman wants the vaccine, I’m fine with that. But I don’t want the government (or you) assuming my daughter will be promiscuous and NEEDS this vaccine at the tender age of 11.
Posted by Amy P. on April 16, 2007 at 0831 hrs
Amy, you are not more moral than I. I think that simply needs to be said. You just aren’t.
And I think asking whether someone is willing to see someone die for failing to live up to your ideals is a perfectly fair question.
So I ask you. Are you willing to see your own daughter diagnosed with cervical cancer because she failed to live up to your ideals perfectly? Yes or no.
Posted by scott on April 16, 2007 at 0836 hrs
Not addressed is how this would be a transfer of money from taxpayers to Merck, which is now the only provider of this vaccine. Merck lobbyists are very effective at hammering together coalitions to agitate for their products.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 16, 2007 at 1430 hrs
No Scott - I never stated medical science is untrustworthy - that was you twisting my words in an attempt to avoid addressing my point.
Which I will repeat for your benefit:
My point above was that even after 20+ years, there were unanticipated consequences to taking a FDA-approved drug. The studies done so far on Gardasil are extremely minimal IMO considering the scope of its proposed usage.
Do you believe the studies done so far are sufficient to balance the possibility for adverse or as yet unknown effects of Gardasil (in light of the potential profit motive of Merck and the literally millions of dollars they’ve been spending lobbying for mandatory vaccination laws such as this)?
As far as “the other part of the story” that I’m not telling you about the CDC official, I find it rather amusing you consider me to have such a Machiavellian personality.
The link I provided you was the result of less than 60 seconds of googling, in response to your challenge to Dan demanding “a medical authority - trustworthy to me”. I honestly have no idea of his political leanings one way or another. Do you always assume that someone is attempting to set you up in that manner?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 16, 2007 at 2007 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134053
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:48 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 112
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 01:18 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).