STD Vaccines

[ST88]

There is now a viable vaccine for the virus that casues cervical cancer (HPV). In fact, there are two versions of this vaccine, one from Merck, and one from GlaxoSmithKline. Both have been shown to be almost 100% effective against the most common strains of HPV, which are associated with sexual contact, but such contact is not necessary for transmission. However, in the future, we may see vaccines against other viral STDs, such as HIV and chlamydia.

Many in the medical community want these vaccines, as they become available, to be mandatory for children at least before high school, possibly along with other routine vaccinations. Many conservative groups oppose making them mandatory because it would lead to reckless sexual behavior among youngsters. They further believe that immunizing people from STDs would undermine their message of abstinence.

Assuming the efficacy of these vaccines, should they be mandatory?

Do these vaccines undermine the message of abstinence coming from conservative groups?

Resources:
Seattle Times article
New India Press article
San Diego Union-Tribune article

[Vladd44]

Only a fool would oppose a vacination of a disease on the grounds that its a sexually transmitted disease.

If we are to follow their rationale, we should all go find a good cave to live in now.

[Bugmaster]

Do these vaccines undermine the message of abstinence coming from conservative groups?

AFAIK, their message is based on religious dogma, not fear of STDs, so... no. And besides, there's still pregnancy to worry about, right ?

[ST88]

Do these vaccines undermine the message of abstinence coming from conservative groups?

AFAIK, their message is based on religious dogma, not fear of STDs, so... no. And besides, there's still pregnancy to worry about, right ?

That's true, but part of their message is that STDs exist in order to punish people for extra-curricular activities. Pregnancy is preventable via other means, i.e. chemical, so without the threat of physical pain from STDs, what do they have left to preach their abstinence dogma?

[USIncognito]

I'm loathe to admit this, but I have HPV. Since I'm a man, I don't have to worry about cervical cancer, but I am glad to learn that the promise of a vacccination that will prevent that strain is virtually fulfilled. I'm also not surprised that the "values" crowd wants it shut down. It's just like birth control. Sex is for procreation and punishment according to them.

I do want to offer a ceveat to the moralizers who think an HPV vaccine is a carte blance for hedonism, we're talking about protection for 1 type of STD, which has a bunch of strains (at least 2 dozen from what I've read).

[micatala]

I have a rather non-standard view on this issue.

In general, I don't think any vaccination should be absolutely mandatory. In fact, in the U.S. there are exceptions in most if not all states to so-called mandatory or 'standard' vaccination regimens.

Having said that, I have no problem with the widespread availability of the type of vaccinations we're talking about here.

Do they undermine the 'abstinence' message? I don't think so. As has been pointed out, this vaccination does not prevent all possible STD's. In addition, I think there are other good reasons for teens to practice abstinence, other than those offered by the 'biblical moralists' folks.

In any case, whether teens practice abstinence or not, we should do all we can to promote responsible sexual behavior. Vaccinations as described here could certainly fit into a set of 'responsible choices' in my book.

[mrmufin]

Assuming the efficacy of these vaccines, should they be mandatory?

I pretty much agree with the sentiments expressed by micatala. Vaccinations--while being responsible choices--should not be absolutely mandatory. Would I encourage use of this particular vaccine and make sure my own (purely hypothetical!) children were vaccinated? Absolutely. Should health care providers offer up the vaccine right along side of the rest of 'em? You bet. But ultimately, parents--not governments--raise children and should be the final arbiters of the vaccinations that their kids receive.

Perhaps my deep libertarian roots are showing, but I don't need the government mandating good, common-sense behaviors. I buckle my seat belt for my own interests, not because it's a law. I wear a helmet when I ride my bicycle for my own protection, even though it's still optional for adults in the state where I live. Basically, explain the risks and rewards of given behaviors and extend to me the liberty to make my own decisions.

Do these vaccines undermine the message of abstinence coming from conservative groups?

Not entirely, but my heart certainly wouldn't be broken if a significant portion of the crap spewed by "conservative" groups was undermined.

Regards,
mrmufin

[ST88]

I have a rather non-standard view on this issue.

In general, I don't think any vaccination should be absolutely mandatory. In fact, in the U.S. there are exceptions in most if not all states to so-called mandatory or 'standard' vaccination regimens.

Micatala & mrmufin:
Doesn't the government have an interest in vaccinating its citizens against highly virulent diseases as a matter of public safety? Look at smallpox, which is a deadly disease (30-50% fatality rate) and spreads fairly rapidly through populations. 300 million people died from smallpox in the 20th century alone, and yet now it does not exist "in the wild" because of vaccinations. If we left it up to individuals whether or not they would be vaccinated, then not only would those individuals be affected by the disease, but everyone they came into contact with who were also not vaccinated. That strikes me as socially engineered eugenics.

Currently, children must be vaccinated with MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella), for example. In addition to protecting the individual children who contract the virus, it also protects the population as a whole, because those immunized children do not become vectors of the virus for further infection. Mumps is spread through respiratory "droplets" -- i.e., coughing & sneezing -- so it would behoove the government to require that all children be immunized against it.

In addition:

According to the World Health Organization, measles is the leading cause of vaccine preventable childhood mortality - there are 30 million cases and 875,000 deaths caused by measles every year.
-- Measles (Wikipedia)

[mrmufin]

Doesn't the government have an interest in vaccinating its citizens against highly virulent diseases as a matter of public safety?

Yes.

What liability is assumed by the mandating agency in the event of complications due to a compulsory vaccination?

When we're speaking of minors, their legal guardian should bear the significant burden of responsibility for the child. I believe that the role of government in vaccinations should be to inform the public of the incidence and consequences associated with the disease for which the vaccinations protect. The government should also inform the legal guardian of any possible consequences associated with the vaccination. The information should be abundant, the pictures graphic, and the data accurate. The government should even provide a means for the vaccinations, at very least for the less fortunate. No one should be denied access to the vaccinations.

If we left it up to individuals whether or not they would be vaccinated, then not only would those individuals be affected by the disease, but everyone they came into contact with who were also not vaccinated. That strikes me as socially engineered eugenics.

It kinda rubs me like individual liberty and personal responsibility. There are risks associated with vaccinations, too, and unless the mandating agency is willing to assume liability for any complications associated with vaccination, I prefer to evaluate the risks personally and exercise my judgement.

The stastics presented in favor of vaccinations wins hands down. I'm convinced that they're a great idea. Nobody wants to contract any of those terrible diseases, regardless of the transmission method. Making a convincing case in favor of a great many vaccinations shouldn't be too difficult.

Regards,
mrmufin

[ST88]

Doesn't the government have an interest in vaccinating its citizens against highly virulent diseases as a matter of public safety?

Yes.

What liability is assumed by the mandating agency in the event of complications due to a compulsory vaccination?

That's a good question. Without socialized medicine, compulsory vaccination and its subsequent liability insurance would appear to be an unfunded mandate. I favor single-payer health insurance. I'm a free-market guy, but the most efficient health care system isn't in a free market.

However, what is the liability of the individual who refuses vaccination and then spreads the disease? Just for the sake of argument, lets say the disease gets spread to pre-vaccinated children -- those who would have been vaccinated at the correct time during development, but had not yet been.

When we're speaking of minors, their legal guardian should bear the significant burden of responsibility for the child. I believe that the role of government in vaccinations should be to inform the public of the incidence and consequences associated with the disease for which the vaccinations protect. The government should also inform the legal guardian of any possible consequences associated with the vaccination. The information should be abundant, the pictures graphic, and the data accurate. The government should even provide a means for the vaccinations, at very least for the less fortunate. No one should be denied access to the vaccinations.

Remember that this thread is about STD vaccines. If the choice was between nothing, MMR, and MMR-STD, what do you think the percentages would be? Shouldn't we, as a society, try to eradicate as much disease as we possibly can? Why should we leave it up to the cranks, the paranoid, and the other anti-vaccination yahoos to carry on the tradition of incurable viral disease? As long as the pathogen is in the population, vaccination would be mandated for anyone who didn't want the disease. So the only way to remove the necessity of vaccination is to vaccinate. It would take decades, but it would happen.

The stastics presented in favor of vaccinations wins hands down. I'm convinced that they're a great idea. Nobody wants to contract any of those terrible diseases, regardless of the transmission method. Making a convincing case in favor of a great many vaccinations shouldn't be too difficult.

In any population, you will find at least a few people who want Pat Buchanan to be president, who deny that NASA went to the moon, and who believe Iraq and Al-Qaida were jointly responsible for 9/11. Without their cooperation, vaccination programs would never end.