Mandatory vaccinations?

[Set]

Add this to the list of things that piss me off.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16975112/wi ... 3?GT1=9033

[Scott Gardener]

The Fundamentalist stance would appear to be that burying one's head in the sand is an effective deterrant against sexually transmitted diseases.

I would put that position along-side a long-standing tradition of opposition that religious Fundamentalism and Conservativism in general has had against the practice of medicine and science for the betterment of humanity. It's not as blatant as, say, murdering astronomers who (correctly) observed that the Earth orbited the Sun and not vice versa, or even quite as damaging as, say, declaring that the use of anesthesia in childbirth was against God's dictate that somehow childbirth was supposed to be painful (though God seemed perfectly willing to let anesthesia be invented in the first place). But, it's up there, as the far-reaching consequences still lead to cancer and thus unneccessary horrible deaths that are totally preventable.

[PariahPoet]

This is a load of crap and one of the reasons I am leaving Texas as soon as I am able. I don't trust the government one iota. For one thing, why are they pushing this particular vaccine? The only reason schools have to vaccinate kids is against something airborne that they could catch at school.
This isn't a vaccine against cervical cancer, it'a against HPV which could cause cancer, but it is certainly not the only cause. And what kind of message is this sending to young girls? That's basicly saying that "you have to have this because we know that you are either going to sleep around or get raped".
Surely it doesn't have anything to do with Rick Perry getting money from pharmaceutical companies...certainly not. Politicians are fine, upstanding citizens, right?
While I think this vaccine should be made readily available for those who want it, I HATE the fact that anything is MANDATORY. If I ever have a daughter, I sure as heck am not going to make her get it unless she decides to.

[Scott Gardener]

Mixed feelings about forcing vaccinations. On the one hand, ensuring everybody is vaccinated has brought to the verge of extinction a number of once horrible diseases like smallpox. Most objections to vaccination have been based on misinformation. Still, vaccination programs haven't been spotlessly scientifically on the mark; there was a period in which polio vaccines caused more cases of polio than people getting actual polio. So, between that and belief in personal freedom as well as ownership of one's body, I should support offering at least an opt-out. To that end, I'll agree with Pariah that the state is being a butt-head.

But, I don't think vaccinating against HPV is tantamount to calling someone a w****. It happens to be sexually transmitted. We can preech all the abstinance we want, but to quote Kyle from the Pokemon parody episode of South Park, "that's great. Now here's how it works in the real world."

It boils down to the options of vaccinate everybody, vaccinate nobody, opt-in, and opt-out. Vaccinate everybody is heavy-handed; it ensures the virus is dead, but it also kills with it freedom. Indeed, to force something unwanted into someone's body is itself a kind of rape. Vaccinate nobody is equally insane; there's plenty of people who want to be protected, and there's no good reason not to use a technology demonstrated to be safe that could save lives and prevent suffering. Any God who would oppose its use is essentially favoring evil, so the religious argument, spectral as it may be, is logically weak as well. That leaves opt-in and opt-out as the remaining reasonable options. I favor opt-out, because it puts less pressure on those wanting protection and encourages the movement to vanquish the virus. It also removes the sense of guilt that society has artifically created for those who are following a biological instinct inherant to the species and directly responsible for our continued existence, regardless of whether or not one actually intends to follow that instinct. Those who truly don't want to be vaccinated are less likely to feel guilty for turning it down, as long as we don't toss patient confidentiality out the window and make a huge spectacle of someone not getting vaccinated. That won't happen in the United States, as we have a law called the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, which includes very strict rules regarding confidentiality of medical records--so strict, in fact, that police have to subpoena drug screens and blood alcohol on drunk drivers, and patients seeing their family doctors after an ER visit have to sign a form giving their regular doctors permission to access their ER visit records before the records can be sent.

[Terastas]

What bothers me is that the official pushing for this has some very blatant ties to the pharmaceutical company that makes the vaccine. Apparently, considering Bush/Cheney's blatant ties to Halliburton, so many other political businessmen feel they can be blatant and get away with it too.

Sorry Fig, sorry Anthony, but I'm chalking this up on my already long list of reasons why Texas blows. If anything, Texas should be one of the last states he should have been able to get away with this sort of thing. Texas is in the Bible Belt where people are famous (and more often infamous) for being devoutly Christian, and this guy is pushing for legislation that indirectly accuses all the sixth graders in the entire state of being skanky hos.

[PariahPoet]

I have to agree with Scott, I don't mind if it is strongly encouraged so long as it isn't forced.

My body is my own, and I should have the last word on what kind of medical procedures occur on it. (yes, I feel strongly about this seeing as I am 22 and have never had a 'female exam' or even a physical) Of course that kind of decision to forego standard exams should only be made after careful consideration. Probably isn't the safest way to go, but it is still my decision to make.

[Lone_Wolf]

I'm sorry, but this is clearly a case of big pharma lobbying for states to force people to buy their vaccines, in this case. I remember somebody tried to do that with the Lime disease vaccine for school children around here... within 2 years, somehow they had switched to advising children not to take the vaccine because of some possible side effects that were potentially more serious to the development in young people. Since they rarely test in this age group, how can they talk states into making it mandatory? What if it is found there are side effects? I'm sure backpedaling would be that much more tricky.

[In_Cruce_Salus]

I'm all for mandatory vaccinations against this sort of thing. My cousin died horribly of cervical cancer, and I really don't want anyone else to go through that. She was in a lot of pain for a long time.

Anyway, if there's a way to wipe out a disease, then it should be done, even if you look like a skanky ho. At least you aren't dead.

[MattSullivan]

Thing is, once you "wipe out" a disease, a newer, more virulent one takes it's place. Now you have SARS, and Bird Flu, and drug-resisitant TB coming out of Mexico. The key to controlling disease is controlling population. But the catholics won't ever buy into that. So...

[Kzinistzerg]

Actually, once you wipe out a disease, you wipe out the disease. other diseases always develop regardless of the state of an entirely different disease. The key to controlling disease is to use standard sanitation, which is linked to population. Wash your damn hands; that simple thing helps more than you'd think.

[Terastas]

I'm all for mandatory vaccinations against this sort of thing. My cousin died horribly of cervical cancer, and I really don't want anyone else to go through that. She was in a lot of pain for a long time.

Anyway, if there's a way to wipe out a disease, then it should be done, even if you look like a skanky ho. At least you aren't dead.

Cancer is a mutation, not a disease. There are things you can do that can increase your chances of getting cancer, but cancer can also develop completely on its own. The vaccine he wants to make mandatory only protects against one of many ways cervical cancer can be acquired.

It's basically translating to me as a scare campaign to drum up some business for his buddies in the pharmaceutical companies. Cervical cancer is indeed a nightmare, but the chances of anyone in the sixth grade developing it are slim at best.

[MattSullivan]

Don't matter . Somethin's gonna come aloong..when you least expect it...and it's gonna GETCHA! iT'S GONNA GETCHA! cANCER, flesh eating bacteria, AIDS, appendicitis, MONO!!!!...we're all on borrowed time until that fatal day :} then...zga-blammmo! youve been got!

So screw yer diet, and drink alcohol until your liver screams for mercy. sometin'z gunna get ya and ya might as well enjoy what little life you got.

[Scott Gardener]

Yes, we all die eventually, but why rush into it? I'm with George Carlin on one thing: the secret to life is not dying!

But, I'm also a transhumanist; I'm hoping that a cure for death will happen with atechnological "singularity"--a series of events that happen so quickly in rapid succession that life as we know it is forever changed dramatically. It could be that in fifteen years, someone will invent a way to back up our consciousness onto a recordable electronic archive, so that we can render ourselves immortal and start each one of us on a multi-millennial voyage of personal and shared evolution as we expand into advanced beings moving beyond Earth into the cosmos. But, with my luck, they'll invent it a year after I die.

[PariahPoet]

Ick, that would be a nightmare for me. I'd hate the thought of living forever. I might be able to tolerate a few hundered years if I was in good health, but man, forever would suck.

[nachoboy]

that reminds me of the book Gulliver's Travels. there's a bunch of people who find the secret to living forever, but they still age, and yeah. they're all old and shrively but they can't die. talk about lame.

anyways, yeah. the whole "mandatory vaccination" thing does seem to promote having sex with anyone and everyone you know. not the best message to be sending, if you aks me.

[vrikasatma]

Okay, here's my take:

Sure, parents don't want their kids to have sex. But, because we live in a sexually-repressed society, they're gonna want to...ahmm, experiment, and you don't have to have full-on coitus to get HPV.

Sending a message? How about thinking about it this way: Sending the message that no, we don't want you to have sex but we know you're going to try and we care enough about you to cover you with an effective vaccination in case you do.

Secondly, when the kid's no longer a kid but a young lady, and she moves out on her own and hooks up with someone fetching, she's covered because she got the shot.

Do the people arguing against this vaccination want to enforce their religion to the point where they're willing to sacrifice their daughters? When they don't have to? Bouquets to the governor of Texas. Go for it. I wish all states would do that.

We all got immunized against cholera. How many people do you know that took that as license to find the nearest cesspool and wallow in it? Or stomp on rusty nails because they got their tetanus booster?

[Set]

We all got immunized against cholera. How many people do you know that took that as license to find the nearest cesspool and wallow in it? Or stomp on rusty nails because they got their tetanus booster?

The difference here is that those things are unpleasant.

[Terastas]

The key word is still "mandatory." It would be one thing if the vaccine was strongly encouraged but still voluntary. Instead they're trying to force the needle into everyone. The only reason he could want to force as many people to have it as possible is to maximize the profits of the company he is representing.

You can make however many miracle cures and vaccines you want, but you can't force anyone to take them. The only exception is for people who are mentally incompetent and/or instable, or youths with the consent of their parents. It's because of the latter that he's pushing to have this vaccine forced on kids entering the sixth grade -- because they are still at an age where they can be given a vaccine without their consent.

Everyone twelve years or older is about to get a vaccine that only one in fifty of them will ever need, and it's being payed for with your tax dollars. How can that not piss you off?

[PariahPoet]

The key word is still "mandatory."

Exactly. I think the vaccine is great, and anybody who wants it should be able to get it without shame. I think it should be encourage even for girls who are not sexually active just beause there is always the horrible possibility of rape.
But I will ALWAYS protest when someone tells me they're going to put something in my body and that I don't have any say in it.

[vrikasatma]

The difference here is that those things are unpleasant.

And cancer is unpleasant, too.

[vrikasatma]

But I will ALWAYS protest when someone tells me they're going to put something in my body and that I don't have any say in it.

If you knew it would stop a disease in its tracks and help to eradicate it, would you get the vaccination?

Yeah, for the vast majority of us that's a slam-dunk question, but some people can be buttheads. A government should be deeply concerned with the physical well-being of its people. Churches and social networks can see to the spiritual-emotional side, but to me this is no different than the mayor of New Orleans declaring mandatory evacuation right before Hurricane Katrina hit. Did he have a right to force people to abandon their homes, in the interest of keeping them alive? Were the people who defied the order and stuck it out (and, in the main, died) more right?

It's a question of not just taking care of yourself, but watching each others' back against a common predator.

[Terastas]

Nobody wants to ever catch a disease, but if you tried to vaccinate yourself against every disease known to man, you'd have a needle in your arm every single day of your life. If a disease is airborne, it makes sense to vaccinate against it, but for diseases that can only be transmitted certain ways, it's impractical.

Tax dollars would be better spent on cervical cancer awareness than trying to vaccinate everyone in the entire state. If the students in question are old enough to have sex, they should also be old enough to be expected to understand the pros and cons. This may seem harsh, but the government has better things to do than try to keep you from doing stupid things. I would consider it the Board of Education's job to educate (natch) students to the dangers of cervical cancer, but if you know the dangers but continue to endanger yourself without any form of protection, the government is not responsible.

Use some of that leftover funding that would have been wasted on the mandatory vaccines for rape awareness just so you know no gaps are being left open. Once a student is aware of the dangers, if they are either still considering sexual experimentation, or they are concerned about the possibility of rape, then they should be able to decide for themselves if they want to be vaccinated or not.

A mandatory vaccine for all students, however, is more expensive, time consuming, and ultimately only benefits the pharmaceutical company that will supply it. When you force someone to buy something, that's not business, it's blackmail.

[vrikasatma]

An awareness program is only partially effective. A vaccination is more effective than an awareness program. We've been telling people that smoking will kill them, and people still smoke.

I'm sorry, I know this ruffles feathers, but I support the governor in this, I'd like to see the program expanded to vaccinate the boys as well, and would like to see other states implement his program. Visualize cervical cancer disappearing!

[PariahPoet]

I still have to respectfully disagree. I understand your reasoning and it does make sense.
But for my own life I will not sacrifice freedom for safety.

[Terastas]

We've been telling people that smoking will kill them, and people still smoke.

And if people know all the dangers of smoking but still decide to smoke, the government is not responsible for their health. Like I said, the government isn't there to save you from your own stupidity. If you know all the risks but still decide to smoke, you only have yourself to blame for any and all health problems you have in the future. Likewise, if you know about all the dangers of sex and still decide to have sex but not have the optional cervical cancer vaccine, you only have yourself to blame if you contract it.

You can encourage the vaccine, but not enforce it. It's just not worth spending millions of extra tax dollars just to protect those one or two dumbasses that will probably just find some other way to get themselves killed anyway. Stupidity is not a crime, but it's not an excuse either.