Finally, parents' voices have been heard.
Merck, the maker of Gardasil, a new vaccine that helps prevent some times of cervical cancers by preventing the spread of the sexually transmitted human papilloma virus or HPV, has decided to back off from their heavy-handed push for the mandatory vaccination of all school-age girls. From LifeSite:
"Growing opposition among family and medical organizations, along with allegations that the vaccine was inadequately tested and had produced serious side effects, together convinced the massive drug conglomerate to pull back from campaign efforts promoting the Gardasil vaccine, Bloomberg reported Feb.20.
Among the groups opposed to the campaign was the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta."
Family and medical groups have been lobbying to stop the push for the mandate of the vaccine, in part because HPV is spread through sexual contact and is therefore preventable, primarily through simple abstinence. HPV is not a highly contagious disease like the mumps or measles, both of which have vaccines which are required for all school-age children. For this reason, parents and medical groups have concerns about requiring the vaccine for all girls who will attend school. Add to those concerns that the vaccine is still very new and needs more testing to truly be declared safe.
"In a statement to the press June 27, 2006, the NVIC criticized the Food and Drug Administration for “fast-tracking) the vaccine without adequate tests of its safety for young girls, and accused Merck of obscuring side effects that resulted from clinical trials of the vaccine.
'Merck and the FDA have not been completely honest with the people about the pre-licensure clinical trials,' said NVIC president Barbara Loe Fisher. 'Merck's pre and post-licensure marketing strategy has positioned mass use of this vaccine by pre-teens as a morality play in order to avoid talking about the flawed science they used to get it licensed. This is not just about teenagers having sex, it is also about whether Gardasil has been proven safe and effective for little girls.'
In particular, the use of aluminum in the vaccine and placebo used in trials raised concern, since studies have linked aluminum to brain cell death and joint inflammation. About 60 percent of those participating in trials experienced headache, fever, nausea, dizziness, vomiting, or diarrhea, the NVIC reported. Among those who received Gardasil, more serious side effects included gastroenteritis, appendicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, asthma, bronchospasm and arthritis."
These are serious concerns, not to mention the fact the article mentions that previous studies resulted in 102 serious adverse side effects and 17 deaths. Clearly, more testing needs to be done before this vaccine is widely marketed, much less mandated, yet that is not what was being done.
"More than 20 states are considering legislation that would make the vaccine mandatory for all girls entering high school. Texas Gov. Rick Perry earlier this month bypassed the state legislature to push through a requirement that girls aged 11-12 receive the shot, with an opt-out clause included for parents who object."
I for one, do not appreciate the government interfering in my life any more than is absolutely necessary, and I most certainly do not want them to force me to make medical choices that may or may not be safe or appropriate for my family. In the case of Texas Gov. Perry, there was an opt-out clause for objecters, but many parents don't take the time to educate themselves on the risks of certain medical interventions, and if mandated, the vaccine could pose very serious risks to their daughters' future health. Wouldn't it just be easier and safer for everyone to heavily promote abstinence?
8 comments:
Question: do you think that having this vaccine will encourage girls to have sex earlier/more often?
I'm just asking, since lots of these 'family' groups often try to push the flawed and dangerous argument that preventing STDs through medical procedures leads to bad sexual habits. The logic behind such arguments, of course, being that it's better to encourage complete abstinence at all costs than to curb the spread of preventable diseases.
Just wanted to know your opinion.
Jacob,
To answer your question, I think that those girls who will be promiscuous no matter what will feel safer and those who are more cautious will understand the risks of promiscuity. It's the group in between...the "sometimes" risk-takers that I do somewhat worry about.
However, that's not really my main concern about the vaccine. I actually think it could be a good thing, but I disagree with making it mandatory for school and particularly at such a young age with relatively little testing. For those girls/women who choose to engage in promiscuous sex, then by all means, they should at least avail themselves of any safety measures available.
There's more to be said here, but currently the "A" key on my laptop is broken. Obviously, it still works, but it's a pain to use, taking me twice as long to type as usual. Hopefully I'll get that fixed soon and be able to expand on my thoughts. Did that answer your question though?
Jacob,
I'm all for preventing disease, but I also think it is my duty as a Christian to stand against anything that facilitates sin - and such wholesale vaccinations as mentioned here are nothing but preparatory exercises to accomodate bad decisions. And sex outside of marriage presents a bigger problem - a longer lasting problem - than cervical cancer.
As medicine continues to trim away the checks our creator placed on our behavior, it's important for those of us in the Christian faith to remind the world that there is still a very good reason for abstaining from sin - whether or not all the consequences remain in play.
Cervical cancer is preferable to pre-marital sex?
*head implodes*
So, if a girl who wants to get the vaccine is of another religion the concept of 'sin' could be null to her, right? If so, what is the argument against getting it then? :)
Kara H,
I think you need to read the posts more carefully. Christina isn't arguing against getting the vaccine. She is arguing against making it mandatory. In fact, she notes that the possibility that the vaccine may lead to promiscuity isn't even her primary concern. She says "that's not really my main concern about the vaccine. I actually think it could be a good thing, but I disagree with making it mandatory for school and particularly at such a young age with relatively little testing."
In other words, the concern is over the fact that more testing needs to be done. The fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were both against making the vaccination mandatory until further testing can be done should tell us something.
It would seem to me that, regardless of whether you worship the Christian God, Allah, Buddha or your dog, you wouldn't want the mandatory vaccination of your child with something that hasn't been fully tested.
I wonder if we should not allow any baby shots to be mandatory? What kind of fascist public school makes kids have shots prior to entering?
Second anonymous,
If the shots that are mandatory had not been fully tested and approved, I would agree with you. But that's not the case. Therefore, your attempt at sarcastically "sticking it" to those you disagree with falls far short. Again, the concern isn't with the concept of the vaccine - it's with the fact that it needs more testing.
Then again, it appears you don't care. If that's the case, I've got a new vaccine I cooked up that I'm pretty sure will keep you from acquiring any sort of nasty STD. Side effects? Well, who knows. It hasn't really been tested. But I'm sure you want me to go ahead and inject your kids, right?
Post a Comment