I’ll be doggoned. Texas, of all places, is going to break ground on an issue that some social conservatives aren’t happy about: the vaccination against a leading cause of cervical cancer. From the Houston Chronicle:
AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry ordered today that schoolgirls in Texas must be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer, making Texas the first state to require the shots.
The girls will have to get Merck & Co.’s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, that are responsible for most cases of cervical cancer.
[snip]
It wasn’t immediately clear how long the order would last and whether the legislation was still necessary. However it could have been difficult to muster support from lawmakers who champion abstinence education and parents’ rights.
Perry, a conservative Christian who opposes abortion rights and stem-cell research using embryonic cells, counts on the religious right for his political base.
But he has said the cervical cancer vaccine is no different than the one that protects children against polio.
Our governor really isn’t my favorite politician, but he’s right about this one. Still — I’m stunned. Of all places…. And I bet he’s still going to have his ear chewed on by the “base”:
Texas allows parents to opt out of inoculations by filing an affidavit stating that he or she objected to the vaccine for religious or philosophical reasons.
Even with such provisions, however, conservative groups say mandates take away parents’ rights to be the primary medical decision maker for their children.
It’s not exactly a mandate if one can choose to opt out, is it?
Then again, conservative groups have also objected on the grounds that innoculating against something that is transmitted sexually would give tacit permission for their children to have sex. Frankly, I continue to be amazed that people think their children care about their permission on that subject — tacit or otherwise.
My concern to this order/legislation has nothing to do with morals/parental rights – rather I am very concerned about this little jewel:
If I had a daughter of the right age, I would more than likely make sure she got the shots (the “more than likely” leaves me wiggle room in case she was allergic to the vaccine or something like that.) However, this one has the appearance (and the smell) of Politics As Usual – which I do take a bit of umbrage at.
~EdT.
Hi Ed —
I realize the Merck has spent (and will continue to spend) a TON of money trying to get the vaccine into wider use. OTOH, if Perry can be bought for $6000, we have bigger problems than we realize.
As it happens, AC falls into the first required group of girls, since she’ll enter 6th grade next year. However, she’ll still be under the recommended minimum age. So I, too, have questions, and I plan to bring them up with her pediatrician.
Meanwhile, I’m watching the fall-out about this, and the related oddities from people who think it’s immoral because it’ll somehow encourage sex, and shaking my head.
I’m curious how many parents will be just fine having that shot on the list of others to have, but when they see its $300 they THEN have some religious or philosophical objections.
Schools constantly have to send out letters about shots that are needed to kids who don’t have them updated, and that’s just for the ones that everyone agrees with. If all the parent has to do is sign a form and its done, I can see a lot of that happening.
Something else to think about – the reason we have mandatory innoculations is to prevent the spread of contagious diseases through the schools. I remember the days before measles (both red and German/rubella) were mandatory, it wasn’t uncommon for one kid to take out an entire classroom for a week or so.
Now, ignoring the “morality” issue (I prefer to call it a red herring), this question percolates up: does the disease (cervical cancer) this virus causes present an imminent public health threat? Is there a special risk of it being transmitted through the school systems? If so, then mandating the vaccination (and, IMHO, providing the funds to pay for it) is perfectly reasonable. Otherwise, at the very least this should go through the normal legislative process before becoming a legal requirement.
Again, IMHO this is not about “protecting women”, nor is it about “morality” or “parental choice” (though the last one is somewhat closer) – it is about whether the risk is high enough to take the extraordinary step of *mandating* the vaccine be given as a *requirement* for entering a specific grade. As I see it, the answer to this is a resounding NO.
Of course, I am also a strong supporter of patients (or the parents of patients) and physicians discussing/agreeing on any and all courses of medical treatment, so if you and DH feel it is the right thing to do by gettiing AC the vaccinations, then I would most certainly support your decision (as if you really give a rat’s rear end *what* my position is when it comes to your child’s health.)
~EdT.