Perry dodges the base

Leave a Reply

Comment as a guest.

  1. My concern to this order/legislation has nothing to do with morals/parental rights – rather I am very concerned about this little jewel:

    Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass state laws across the country mandating Gardasil for girls as young as 11 or 12. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country…The New Jersey-based drug company could generate billions in sales if Gardasil — at $360 for the three-shot regimen — were made mandatory across the country.

    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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

Read Next

Teen parenting sucks

What moral decay?

Sliding Sidebar