Merck bows to compulsory STD/cancer programs
Posted by Moonage on 21 Feb 2007 | Tagged as: Political Correctness
Read this today:
Now, if polio had been transmitted sexually, would we have not required kids to get vaccinated like we did and pretty much wipe polio off the face of the Earth? It’s disappointing to me that people will over-react to something purely because it has sexual connotations to it. All our kids are going to have sex eventually. As parents, I know we don’t like to think about that. However, cervical cancer is deadly.
3 Comments »
on 23 Feb 2007 at 5:03 am 1.American Phoenix
said …
I’m not opposed to the idea of mandatory vaccinations for diseases that are communicable through casual contact. However, there are a number of problems with this vaccine:
1) It will not protect against all strains of the HPV virus. It will only provide about 70% protection. You can still contract HPV, even after receving the vaccine.
2) It will not protect against other STDs (obviously).
3) It has not been thoroughly tested on girls in the 9 year old age group. Apparently only 250 9 year olds were tested. That’s a far too small test group.
4) There is no real data on the duration of this vaccine. How long will protection last? No one really knows.
5) Mandatory vaccinations take control out of the hands of the parents, who know best what is in their daughter’s interests. Making the HPV vaccination mandatory at too young an age means that you could have doctors having to explain this stuff to little girls who aren’t yet old enough to understand what its all about. Particularly if girls as young as age 9 are included in the legislation. This raises ethical conundrums for the medical practitioner and problems for the parents.
6) This is a brand new vaccine that hasn’t had very much use in the marketplace. I’d really prefer that the marketplace and medical practitioners report results and/or problems for at least a few years before a decision is made to make the vaccine mandatory. I don’t think a brand new vaccine should EVER be made mandatory.
Where there isn’t a huge public health impact, I don’t think a vaccination should be made mandatory. Cervical cancer rates are already down 32% as a result of screening.
I’m certainly glad this vaccine is available. But I think it’s only a partial solution that has to be weighed along with all of the risks and benefits.
Frankly, I think this is about Merck trying to create a market for its brand new vaccine. If Merck successfully lobbies state legislatures to make their vaccine mandatory, they’ll have their market locked in without having to go through the usual method of persuading doctors and parents that this is really a good product. That would make Merck a lot of money and save them a boatload of money that they would otherwise spend on marketing.
Frankly, I think that attitude stinks. It shows a complete disregard and contempt for the duties and rights of a parent, and a parent’s ability to make decisions for our children.
on 23 Feb 2007 at 9:06 am 2.Moonage
said …
I’m in favor of anything that prevents cancer. You’re assuming ALL parents have the personal responsibility and concern enough to weigh the pros and cons of this vaccine. That’s just not the case. We’ll figure out more about how cancer develops and is sometimes spread in the future. What we do know now is cervical cancer is highly preventable by preventing the spread of HPV. The American Cancer Society estimated that in 2004, 10,520 women developed cervical cancers and about 3,900 died. Also, a child does not even have to have sex to have HPV, their parents can pass it to them. If this drug stops that natural, non-sexual transmissions, then something good has come from it. And, several of your arguments do exactly what I’m complaining about, focusing solely on the sexual aspect of the issue instead of the health aspect. No one says this prevents other STD’s, that not even the issue. The issue is it is a vaccine to prevent cervical cancers. No one says you have to explain the HPV aspect to the child, that’s not the issue. That’s the whole point of my gripe. What if we find out that all cancers are transmitted through sex or acts of intimacy? Will we continue to resist it because of the sexual connotations?
on 23 Feb 2007 at 6:40 pm 3.American Phoenix
said …
All parents DO have the responsibility to care for their children. That some will not because they are stupid, ignorant or mean is not a good reason for taking that responsibility of ALL parents away.
The HPV vaccine will not prevent the spread of HPV in all cases. It will only prevent 70% of those cases. No one knows how long it will last either, which means that this could actually cause a situation in which someone thinks they are protected when they really aren’t, and that can lead to risky behavior which causes cancer.
HPV is a sexually transmitted disease in 95% of all cases. There is a small percentage of cases which are transmitted at birth, in which case, the vaccine will not help because the baby has already been exposed and the vaccine has not been approved for use or tested on babies. The mother would have had to have the vaccine already, and as previously discussed, even that won’t absolutely prevent the mother from contracting HPV.
There is also a small percentage of cases in which transmission is through sexual abuse of minors. In that case, you don’t want to give a vaccine; you want to remove the child from the abusive situation completely.
There is a possibility of non-sexual transmission through secretions, but according to Brown University, no such cases have been clearly documented.
The CDC’s own brochure on transmission says:
“HPV infection can be detected on inanimate objects, such as clothing or environmental surfaces. However, transmission is not known to occur by this route.”
See page 3.
So HPV is an STD, and it’s mode of trasmission is genital contact, which happens during sexual activity or childbirth.
I’m not against this vaccine at all. I’m against making it mandatory for little girls, because 1) it interferes with the rights of a parent to make medical decisions for their minor children, 2) the vaccine is brand new and that means that all of the marketplace issues related to its use and efficacy haven’t been thoroughly worked out, which they should be before such a vaccine is made mandatory, and 3) the possibility that the vaccine poses for misinformation and increasing risky behavior if you think you’re protected when you’re not.
I absolutely think it’s a good idea for young women to get this vaccine.
P.S. Remember Sally Lieber, the California Assemblywoman who wants to make spanking illegal in California? She’s also introduced this legislation in California. It turns out she had a conflict of interest because of stock ownership in Merck, however, so she’s had to withdraw her sponsorship. The bill remains active with a different sponsor.