I hope this is struck down in court.

[Gfted1]

And imo diseases don't have to be airbourne to be worthy of wanting to cure. Polio, for example. Should we have deprived everyone who didn't have access to 100% safe/clean drinking water/food supplies or who didn't wash their hands well enough after going to the bathroom, say, of the polio vaccine?

 

Im not arguing against a cure. I disapprove of the delivery. Protecting the general public against the most common and easily transmittable virus is just good business. Its the targeting of niche, non-trasmittable viruses and then mandating innoculation that raises my hackles. Throw in the $6,000.00 kickback, I mean donation, his election fund received from the very maker of the drug and the whole thing stinks to hell.

[LadyCrimson]

So only certain people are worth the cost of protecting against death by disease?

[Gfted1]

So only certain people are worth the cost of protecting against death by disease?

 

 

Eh? How did you get that from what I just typed?

 

If it isnt "mandated" doesnt mean it ceases to exist. You want it, trot you daughter on down to the obgyn and get it. Whats the big deal?

[LadyCrimson]

Children can't protect themselves and not all parents have the education/awareness or the mental...uh...acumen to "trot their children down" to do it for them.

[Tale]

But, what if I don't want it? My daughter won't get cancer, she doesn't have sex.

 

4 years later

 

WHAT DO YOU MEAN SHE HAS CANCER?!

[Gfted1]

Children can't protect themselves and not all parents have the education/awareness or the mental...uh...acumen to "trot their children down" to do it for them.

 

 

So in lue of even the most basic parenting skills you advocate the government "taking charge" of those pesky decisions and deciding for you? Well, youve got me there, I have no adequate response for that.

[LadyCrimson]

But, what if I don't want it? My daughter won't get cancer, she doesn't have sex.

 

4 years later

 

WHAT DO YOU MEAN SHE HAS CANCER?!

 

Precisely.

[LadyCrimson]

Children can't protect themselves and not all parents have the education/awareness or the mental...uh...acumen to "trot their children down" to do it for them.

 

 

So in lue of even the most basic parenting skills you advocate the government "taking charge" of those pesky decisions and deciding for you? Well, youve got me there, I have no adequate response for that.

So if the most 'basic parenting skills' means they're going to trot their kids down anyway, what's they objection to a mandate to cover those that aren't?

 

People can be very "good parents" overall and still be in complete denial about playing the odds with their children's future health. What I advocate is not allowing children, who can't make such arguments/decisions on their own, to be deprived of an option that may (or may not - nothing's ever certain) save their life in the future.

[Pop]

So what you're arguing is that children shouldn't have the right to decide what's best for themselves, parents shouldn't have the right to decide what's best for their children, that the best judge of what's good for a child is the government he or she had no hand in electing?

[Tale]

So what you're arguing is that children shouldn't have the right to decide what's best for themselves, parents shouldn't have the right to decide what's best for their children, that the best judge of what's good for a child is the government he or she had no hand in electing?

As a former child, myself, I would think a compromise between the parents and government being the best. A village to raise a child and all that.

 

Parents for much of the traditional caretaking. Government when parents are fecking morons.

Edited February 7, 2007 by Tale

[alanschu]

And imo diseases don't have to be airbourne to be worthy of wanting to cure. Polio, for example. Should we have deprived everyone who didn't have access to 100% safe/clean drinking water/food supplies or who didn't wash their hands well enough after going to the bathroom, say, of the polio vaccine?

 

Am I the only one that sees the causes of polio and the unsafe drinking water and food supplies as being something a bit more unavoidable than having unprotected sex with someone that has a disease that is typically cured by the human body on its own, and while having a rare chance of developing cervical cancer (assuming they contracted a "high-risk" type of HPV), can still be caught in pre-cancerous stages and treated in ways to prevent a persistent infection from becoming life-threatening cancer is a little bit different?

[LadyCrimson]

(Young) children typically don't have the capability to understand the long-term ramications of certain decisions, imo, no. And parents are sometimes not objective enough, also imo. That's just human nature.

 

Of course the government isn't always great at deciding things either - as I already stated earlier, there are cases where a vaccine may not be proven effective or safe enough for me to think it's worthwhile...yet. There is also always the consideration of whether too many vaccines may eventually backfire via stronger worse mutations. And like many, I often object to too much government meddling in what I can or cannot "do" - while also fully aware that sometimes that's more a psychological reaction rather than a rational reaction...heh. There's a lot of things in play, a lot of things to consider.

 

My objection here, I suppose, stems mostly from the seeming objection about the cost of such mandates.

 

To me, saving potential lives shouldn't have a dollar value assigned to it - $100 is ok, $300 is not - or at least, that shouldn't be the primary objection.

[Craigboy2]

Ya by the way everyone hates Perry.

[alanschu]

To me, saving potential lives shouldn't have a dollar value assigned to it - $100 is ok, $300 is not - or at least, that shouldn't be the primary objection.

 

It wouldn't be $100 or $300 though, unless each and every one of those vaccinated were to get the disease. My understand that the disease becoming cancerous is rare, and it's still possible to prevent the presence of a rare persistent infection from becoming cancerous by catching it with Pap tests and making treatments. 80% of women by the age of 50 are figured to have contracted the disease, but the pervasiveness of cervical cancer seems to dwarf that (and the rates of cervical cancer have been continuously falling since the 1950s as it is, thanks to the Pap test.... link) However, according to the Alberta Cancer Board, cancer can be prevented and treated if detected early.

 

But even then, lets say 1 in 10 women will actually get cervical cancer, then the cost goes to $3000 to cure someone. If it's 1 in 100, then the cost goes to $30000, 1 in 1000 becomes $300,000 to save a life, because fortunately, the vast majority of women will not have to worry about being unable to fight off HPV naturally.

 

 

I'd much, much, much, much, much, much rather they spend millions of dollars on this which explores using DCA as a potential cure for cancer, but will not be receiving any funding from pharmaceutical companies because it involves a compound which is not patented, and therefore will not be able to recoup the heavy costs of clinical trials. I'd see this as being more useful allocation of government funds than spending millions of dollars (and making a pharmaceutical company that doesn't want to fund something that may be more widely useful and would compete with their own, limited scope project) to save a small amount of lives.

Edited February 7, 2007 by alanschu

[LadyCrimson]

I fully agree that funding for medical research is woefully lacking. Not to mention, if health care/drugs wasn't becoming so outrageously expensive for the average soul to get/aquire, perhaps more parents would voluntarily go get vaccines in the first place.

 

The general problem for all these things, imo, is human nature - people in general don't like to give money to things that do not appear to have immediate visible and/or guarenteed results (or harm) to them personally.

 

If there was a voting option that said "the government will fund either of these projects, please choose one" - I'd pick the research over the cervical cancer mandate. If I look at the vaccine mandate by itself, I'm still for it. For one thing, if carried out, in 50-80 years we'll have new data - vs only emotional speculation - regarding this type of cancer, the vaccine, and eventual costs.

[Pop]

It should also be noted that this vaccine has some potential to combat anal cancer as well. Clinical tests are underway. Take note, you buggerers of the board. You know who you are.

[alanschu]

Was anyone stating that clinical tests aren't underway?

 

Since you mention it though, if clinical tests are still only underway and not finished, isn't it premature to use an executive order to bypass legislature to enforce this act in 2008?

 

 

I was under the impression that the vaccine specifically targets HPV and its related cancer causing agents, so the ability to combat anal cancer is from HPV induced anal cancer, which would still effectively be a sexually transmitted disease.

[Pidesco]

Was anyone stating that clinical tests aren't underway?

 

Since you mention it though, if clinical tests are still only underway and not finished, isn't it premature to use an executive order to bypass legislature to enforce this act in 2008?

 

 

I was under the impression that the vaccine specifically targets HPV and its related cancer causing agents, so the ability to combat anal cancer is from HPV induced anal cancer, which would still effectively be a sexually transmitted disease.

 

I would like to pertinently point out that the big point of contention for the people complaining about this regards only under age sex and not anal sex specifically. I take this as a sign that the gays actually control the world. They're like the new Jews, but with a better sense of style. :bunny:

[alanschu]

If you were a Snickers commercial I'd ban you!

[Pidesco]

^Here's one of their agents! :fear:

Edited February 7, 2007 by Pidesco

[Pop]

Since you mention it though, if clinical tests are still only underway and not finished, isn't it premature to use an executive order to bypass legislature to enforce this act in 2008?

AFAIK, the tests that have been completed have backed up the cervical cancer claim. Not sure about the anal cancer stuff, which is probably why they haven't ordered it for boys. Not that they ever will. That'll have a much harder time making it as public policy, especially given sodomy laws in some states. And more people will not voluntarily vaccinate their sons, because most people don't plan on their sons being gay.

[alanschu]

Is the HPV cause of anal-cancer any more difficult to detect and treat in a precancerous stage than the cervical cancer?

 

 

The big issue I have is that the scale is so small, and even then it's possible to detect, treat, and remove the cancer with a Pap test.

[Pop]

Anal pap tests can be done, but they're just coming into prevalence, for whatever reason. The rate of anal cancer amongst gay men is comparable to the rate of cervical cancer in women before the advent of pap smears. Little blurb here.

[~Di]

I may be off base but iirc, this particular vaccination is for a cancer caused by HPV (Human Papilloma Virus (SP?)) which I think can only be contracted though sex. So thats my point, all current "must have" vaccinations for public school are for viruses that are easily trasmitted via touch or air, and hence they make sense to have in place for the greater good of the community. This is not the case with this vaccine which treats a virus you cant get just walking about.

 

A couple of observations. First, I agree with those who do not believe the government should be in the business of legally forcing people to take vaccinnations, unless said vaccinations are required for the health of the society as a whole... examples--smallpox, diptheria, polio, etc.... all communicable diseases that ravaged schoolchildren for generations. Even in those cases the government did not force people to vaccinate their children under pain of legal prosecution. It was required by school districts to protect their students. If parents did not want to immunize their children for religious or other reasons, or if the children were allergic to eggs (as well as to vaccines incubated in eggs), then those children could certainly go to private schools that may not have had immunization requirements. Nowhere, IIRC, did the government itself actually legislate mass vaccinations. Hell, flu shots are not even legally mandatory... and I think we all know what happens when an influenza pandemic turns entire continents into ghost lands. The government should never, and I do mean never, legislate medical care.

 

Second, 70% of cervical cancers are caused by this HPV virus. It is incredibly widespread. Simply having sex only with a condom for one's entire life, married and otherwise, may be a preventative (since a huge percentage of men carry this virus)... but of course, that means no children. That's seriously not an option for most women. They are not willing to go childless simply because their husbands in all probability carry the virus. Most people do. To suggest that the vaccine is unnecessary because women can avoid HPV by using condoms all of their lives, even if it means remaining childless, is like suggesting that women can avoid breast cancer by simply having their breasts removed.

 

There is no legitimate reason any parent would withhold this vaccine from their young daughters unless they are either incredibly ignorant or abusively cruel. Cervical cancer is one of the most common cancers in women; and it kills.

 

Nevertheless, the government should not be allowed to legislate medical care. Period.

[Calax]

Just saw a tv ad for the drug on tv and it says it cures cancer.

 

I'm actually on Di's side, The government should not mandate medical care or procedures by law. Otherwise we'll see a few states that might order you to get an abortion when under age because mommy and daddy and big brother know that you're not ready for having a baby.

 

My guess is that if this gets REALLY out there, we'd end up having medication's for fairly trivial diseases that people self medicate/deal with on their own (for example my ADD) forced down our throats so that we can lead "normal" and "productive" lives.