Cervical Cancer Vaccine Gets Injected With a Social Issue

Beco

I'm Not Your Guru
Joined
Sep 12, 2002
Posts
57,795
Who are these people??? i wonder how their values would change if one of their kids got cervical cancer?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Fear a Shot For Teens Could Encourage Sex

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 31, 2005; Page A03

A new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer has set up a clash between health advocates who want to use the shots aggressively to prevent thousands of malignancies and social conservatives who say immunizing teenagers could encourage sexual activity.

Although the vaccine will not become available until next year at the earliest, activists on both sides have begun maneuvering to influence how widely the immunizations will be employed.

Groups working to reduce the toll of the cancer are eagerly awaiting the vaccine and want it to become part of the standard roster of shots that children, especially girls, receive just before puberty.

Because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory, citing fears that it could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage. Several leading groups that promote abstinence are meeting this week to formulate official policies on the vaccine.

In the hopes of heading off a confrontation, officials from the companies developing the shots -- Merck & Co. and GlaxoSmithKline -- have been meeting with advocacy groups to try to assuage their concerns.

The jockeying reflects the growing influence that social conservatives, who had long felt overlooked by Washington, have gained on a broad spectrum of policy issues under the Bush administration. In this case, a former member of the conservative group Focus on the Family serves on the federal panel that is playing a pivotal role in deciding how the vaccine is used.

"What the Bush administration has done has taken this coterie of people and put them into very influential positions in Washington," said James A. Morone Jr., a professor of political science at Brown University. "And it's having an effect in debates like this."

The vaccine protects women against strains of a ubiquitous germ called the human papilloma virus. Although many strains of the virus are innocuous, some can cause cancerous lesions on the cervix (the outer end of the uterus), making them the primary cause of this cancer in the United States. Cervical cancer strikes more than 10,000 U.S. women each year, killing more than 3,700.

The vaccine appears to be virtually 100 percent effective against two of the most common cancer-causing HPV strains. Merck, whose vaccine is further along, plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration by the end of the year for approval to sell the shots.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/30/AR2005103000747.html
 
Just another example of the Republicans playing politics with womens bodies.

For the life of me I cant understand why any woman would be a republican and theres a bunch here who are hypocrites to the max.
 
Lets not forget they are against stem cell research as well as the right to choose an abortion or not.

Then theres the whole lets save babies lives, but kill doctors and nurses, AND invade countries and kill people and break shit.

Then....Hay hay hay! Lets go to church and get our sins forgiven!


Fucking freaks.
 
Killswitch said:
Lets not forget they are against stem cell research as well as the right to choose an abortion or not.

Then theres the whole lets save babies lives, but kill doctors and nurses, AND invade countries and kill people and break shit.

Then....Hay hay hay! Lets go to church and get our sins forgiven!


Fucking freaks.


Wow, you really need to chill out.
 
my mother caught hpv from her husband, my father.

when i was 5y/o i remember being left with some bf of hers for a week because she needed cancer removed.
then she had months of illness, hospitalk trips, relapse, more ops to remove more cancer.
then an entire childhood of watching her panic over every gyn checkup.

what about family values that stop kids from losing mothers? or living in fear that they might? hope the fuckers burn in hell.
 
Killswitch said:
Lets not forget they are against stem cell research as well as the right to choose an abortion or not.

Then theres the whole lets save babies lives, but kill doctors and nurses, AND invade countries and kill people and break shit.

Then....Hay hay hay! Lets go to church and get our sins forgiven!


Fucking freaks.
I bet the Dems dont mention this shit in 2008. They ought to hammer this home ......
 
Killswitch said:
Just another example of the Republicans playing politics with womens bodies.

For the life of me I cant understand why any woman would be a republican and theres a bunch here who are hypocrites to the max.

Amen .
 
Because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory, citing fears that it could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage.
the virus is already pandemic in the world's population. this means that sexual activity is as well, so this is just a stupid claim to make.

and so what if it does. i'd much rather see more sex and less cervical cancer.
 
Beco said:
I bet the Dems dont mention this shit in 2008. They ought to hammer this home ......

Its gonna all be about the war and bush's ineptness.

Thats another casualty of this crap administration. They leave no room to even discuss the domestic issues that affect this country more than any terrorist with a fucking bomb in his shoe.
 
Killswitch said:
Bless you my child. Say three hail marys and meet me behind the rectory!

:devil:
You're going to do what with your meat behind what erection?
 
I'm against any mandantory vaccination. You either take the vaccination voluntarily or you take your child to get it. But the government has no business making some medical procedure mandantory.

Ishmael
 
Ishmael said:
I'm against any mandantory vaccination. You either take the vaccination voluntarily or you take your child to get it. But the government has no business making some medical procedure mandantory.

Ishmael

A government has an obligation to protect its citizens. Granted this particular vaccine shouldn't be mandatory. Why, it is transmitted through sexual activity. Just like the AIDS vaccine (if/when one can be developed) shouldn't be mandatory. You can just avoid the damned thing. If you are arguing that the US shouldn't have made small pox vaccination mandatory I have to strongly disagree with you. The same goes for several other diseases that used to claim thousands of lives on a yearly basis.
 
Ishmael said:
I'm against any mandantory vaccination. You either take the vaccination voluntarily or you take your child to get it. But the government has no business making some medical procedure mandantory.

Ishmael

I agree.




Having said that, having a vaccine available will do no more to encourage people to have sex than producing condoms does. People will have sex regardless of what the "family value" contingent wishes. Our only hope is to teach them to be as safe as they possibly can. And if people feel having the vaccine will help them with that, then they should get it.
 
Sean Renaud said:
A government has an obligation to protect its citizens. Granted this particular vaccine shouldn't be mandatory. Why, it is transmitted through sexual activity. Just like the AIDS vaccine (if/when one can be developed) shouldn't be mandatory. You can just avoid the damned thing. If you are arguing that the US shouldn't have made small pox vaccination mandatory I have to strongly disagree with you. The same goes for several other diseases that used to claim thousands of lives on a yearly basis.

We agree to disagree then.

Tell me under what moral authority the government has to force a free citizen to undergo a medical procedure? It makes no difference if that citizen will die if he/she doesn't undergo the procedure, that's their decision, not the governments.

And I suppose the next thing will be the "children" argument. And my answer is the same. Those that took the vaccine will be protected and those that didn't won't. It's axiomatic that those that contract the disease are no threat to those that took the vaccine, right? So what's the problem?

The logical extension of your argument is that the governments obligation to protect all the citizens overrides ANY and ALL individual liberties and rights. I certainly hope you don't have any objection to the NSA's phone intercepts because that is exactly the same argument.

I'm glad to hear of any vaccine that may prevent disease of any sort. But I also understand that that vaccine comes with certain risks to those that take the vaccine, and sometimes those risks are fatal. You are saying that it's quite alright if 1 in 10,000 or 100,000 die from the vaccine itself even if the risk of that death is forced upon them by the state. In that context one can looked at it as a form of a mandated death lottery.

Ishmael
 
Freya said:
I agree.




Having said that, having a vaccine available will do no more to encourage people to have sex than producing condoms does. People will have sex regardless of what the "family value" contingent wishes. Our only hope is to teach them to be as safe as they possibly can. And if people feel having the vaccine will help them with that, then they should get it.

Pretty much. I think it's a pretty lame argument myself. There are much larger philosophical principles involved than teen sex.

Ishmael
 
Ishmael said:
We agree to disagree then.

Tell me under what moral authority the government has to force a free citizen to undergo a medical procedure? It makes no difference if that citizen will die if he/she doesn't undergo the procedure, that's their decision, not the governments.

And I suppose the next thing will be the "children" argument. And my answer is the same. Those that took the vaccine will be protected and those that didn't won't. It's axiomatic that those that contract the disease are no threat to those that took the vaccine, right? So what's the problem?

The logical extension of your argument is that the governments obligation to protect all the citizens overrides ANY and ALL individual liberties and rights. I certainly hope you don't have any objection to the NSA's phone intercepts because that is exactly the same argument.

I'm glad to hear of any vaccine that may prevent disease of any sort. But I also understand that that vaccine comes with certain risks to those that take the vaccine, and sometimes those risks are fatal. You are saying that it's quite alright if 1 in 10,000 or 100,000 die from the vaccine itself even if the risk of that death is forced upon them by the state. In that context one can looked at it as a form of a mandated death lottery.

Ishmael

Yeah, we really are going to agree to disagree on this one. Least your point is logical and well thought out.

I do believe that a governments primary goal is to protect the people living under it. I believe that an issue like this comes up it should be put to a vote not decided in Congress, that you and I should be the ones making the final say.

I won't bring up the children. I once again fall back on how many diseases literally don't exist in the US specifically but largely in the civilized world. If we could make cancer into the next smallpox I'd be all about it. Even with the 1 out every ten or hundred thousand dying. People are going to die its an unfortunate factor of life. Besides considering that estimates suggest that 70% of women are exposed to HPV by age 50 and with it being the second highest kiler of women in the world I would think that you could make an excellent case that the a lot of the women who die of the vaccine would have died anyway. Much later though, still that's really neither here nor there.

The way I said before yeah the logical extension is that a government shoudl run roughshod over liberties. The thing is I believe in democracy and as much as I hate when it works against me the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Anarchy doesn't work, not really there have to be limitations somewhere and I would think that cases where you put the masses at danger should be one of them.

I don't liken forced vaccinations to NSA wiretappings anyway. I think that it is much closer to forcing children to go to school. We know the results of not doing it.
 
I'm guessing that the pro-cancer lobby is gonna be pretty small and pretty powerless. To suggest that women are foregoing sex for fear of getting the HPV is bizarre.
 
Sean Renaud said:
I don't liken forced vaccinations to NSA wiretappings anyway. I think that it is much closer to forcing children to go to school. We know the results of not doing it.
you can't force vaccinations.

we don't force anyone to send their kid to a particular school...they can choose a different school, a private school, home tuition.

seriously, what're you going to do?
take parents to court? have the police remove and restrain kids while they are jabbed? traumatise families? because it would come down to that eventually...laws must be enforced.
you cannot force a person to have medical treatment. it's against human rights and basic morality.
 
Sean Renaud said:
Yeah, we really are going to agree to disagree on this one. Least your point is logical and well thought out.

I do believe that a governments primary goal is to protect the people living under it. I believe that an issue like this comes up it should be put to a vote not decided in Congress, that you and I should be the ones making the final say.

I won't bring up the children. I once again fall back on how many diseases literally don't exist in the US specifically but largely in the civilized world. If we could make cancer into the next smallpox I'd be all about it. Even with the 1 out every ten or hundred thousand dying. People are going to die its an unfortunate factor of life. Besides considering that estimates suggest that 70% of women are exposed to HPV by age 50 and with it being the second highest kiler of women in the world I would think that you could make an excellent case that the a lot of the women who die of the vaccine would have died anyway. Much later though, still that's really neither here nor there.

The way I said before yeah the logical extension is that a government shoudl run roughshod over liberties. The thing is I believe in democracy and as much as I hate when it works against me the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Anarchy doesn't work, not really there have to be limitations somewhere and I would think that cases where you put the masses at danger should be one of them.

I don't liken forced vaccinations to NSA wiretappings anyway. I think that it is much closer to forcing children to go to school. We know the results of not doing it.


We agree to disagree once more. I have no interest in Democracy and neither did the founding fathers. Or as Ben Franklin put it, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for lunch." The country was founded on the principle of Republicanism and individual freedom, not collective freedoms subject to abrogation at the whim of the populace.

Re. going to school. Isn't it interesting that public schooling has gone from voluntary to mandantory and the penalties for failure to comply have risen in direct proportion to the monies the school districts recieve from the federal government for that education???? Fortunately the government is only mandating the education, not the manner in which it's delivered. (As an aside, shouldn't a family that home educates their children recieve the same amount of monies from the government as the school districts do?)

Ishmael
 
We do it all the time already. There is a list of vaccinations that you have to have to go to school.

As far as private school and home tuition be honest. Neither are real options for the average American. Being rich shouldn't put you above the law not ever.
 
Ishmael said:
We agree to disagree once more. I have no interest in Democracy and neither did the founding fathers. Or as Ben Franklin put it, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for lunch." The country was founded on the principle of Republicanism and individual freedom, not collective freedoms subject to abrogation at the whim of the populace.

Re. going to school. Isn't it interesting that public schooling has gone from voluntary to mandantory and the penalties for failure to comply have risen in direct proportion to the monies the school districts recieve from the federal government for that education???? Fortunately the government is only mandating the education, not the manner in which it's delivered. (As an aside, shouldn't a family that home educates their children recieve the same amount of monies from the government as the school districts do?)

Ishmael

I wish I could argue that part about democracy. I usually compare it to non-violent rule by mob. I just don't see any other logical way that we can have anything that even resembles invidual freedom. If freedom isn't the right to choose what is it?

Yes people who home school should receive the same amount of money that their child would have rated the school they would have attended.
 
Sean Renaud said:
We do it all the time already. There is a list of vaccinations that you have to have to go to school.

As far as private school and home tuition be honest. Neither are real options for the average American. Being rich shouldn't put you above the law not ever.
in the uk all vaccines are offered free to every child...but all parents are free to refuse.

children educated at home often outstrip publicly schooled kids by a long way.
some parents live in areas where the schools are at best useless, at worst dangerous.
 
Back
Top