I'm out in left field (or maybe it's right field in this case, LOLZ) on this, but I have to say that requiring any type of medical treatment/procedure really, really creeps me out. Why should doing so be convenient?

Having a medical treatment/procedure required for members of one gender but not the other creeps me out even more, especially when it's in a context like this (school) that is at best tangentially related to the cause of the disease (sex).

I'm all for requiring it for guys too, if the research proves that it is effective and safe for them as well. HPV is related to penile cancer, but more importantly, guys spread it just as much as girls do. (Not that penile cancer isn't important, it just isn't as common as cervical cancer from HPV)

I see your point about requiring girls to get it in a co-ed school environment, but I don't think it makes a huge deal in the long run.

I see what you're saying, but let's leave that behind - if the government has decided it should make it "mandatory" (or as mandatory as possible), is there a better way?

I mean . . . it's very similar to why women get breast cancer exams and most men do not - simply put, the danger is much higher for females.

Having the shot done in school prevents us from having to have a massive effort to promote the shot, or creating increased bureaucracy (such as the "Department of Have You Had Your Shots" or whatever) . . . it's certainly not a perfect solution, but I can see why it was the first thought.

Right -- I agree with this, but the "having something required for one gender but not the other" in the context of health/public school is creepy. To me, this is separate from the "it affects females way more than males" issue.

If the government makes a vaccine mandatory, I'm not sure if there is a better way -- I can't really think of anything else besides some type of "Department of Have you Had Your Shots" (sort of like animal licensing for kids, LOL).

Of course none of this directly affects me in any way, but I strongly believe that medical decisions should be left to the individual.

immunization
 

Perhaps this has already been touched upon, but choosing to have sex and having unplanned sex are two different things. Many young people lose their viginity far too early because they were drunk. In fact, many young women end up pregant because they and their partner were consuming alcohol when sex took place. If a pregnancy occurs, then certainly the opportunity for a sexually-transmitted disease is also possible since no protetction was used.

Another threat for young women that few want to talk about is the possibility of rape, either date rape (sex with someone they know) or violent rape by a stranger. In neither case was the case planned, but in both cases no protection would be used. Many young women who are victims of rape were virgins until that time. If this immunization will protect them, then I don't think it's a bad thing.

My daughter is 25 and is currently undergoing the procedure to protect herself in case of an unplanned sexual experience. She is a young professional and indicated that several of her friends have also opted for the vaccine for protection. She graduated from Vandy, works in Nashville, and has always made good decisions. This was entirely her choice, and my wife and I support her fully.

Just this morning I read a news report that Merck, the company that is ultimately responsible for the vaccine, gave a sizeable $$ donation to Texas Governor Perry days before his decision. A coincidence? He swears yes, but who knows with politics the way it is these days? I would like to think he had the best interest of young Texas women at heart, but Texas is so conservative I admit I was shocked when it came out of Texas of all places.

Yep, I think Merck could advertise directly to the parents and sell it the way anything else gets sold.

A gov't could require insurers to cover it without making it mandatory for school.

I agree that tetanus is debatable, but I think the idea is that if a kid got injured at recess. . . etc. Hepatitis does seem to be a precedent for requiring something you're not likely to be exposed to at school, but I guess you could be with little kids and injuries.

Pragmatic in the sense that it would cost less to immunize than to treat the disease: yes, the gov't has an interest in trying to get people to get the shots. Connecting it with school attendance? Again, I don't think so.

K Sig RC,

Aren't you troubled a little bit by the way the government decided that it should be mandatory or almost mandatory?

Doesn't it seem like this decision should be a little more democratic? At least bills introduced and voted on, maybe? Ideally I'd like a referendum, but I'd settle for discussion and a vote at the legislative level.

The Merck lobbies and governor decides leaves a lot out of the equation, doesn't it?

ETA: It is essentially the same story Blue Angel posted yesterday. Sorry.


I apologize if this has been posted already:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/bu...ei=5087%0A

Interesting change of course.

The lobbying has likely already occurred, but it's a nice PR move.

I'm not sure that the MMR vaccine was voted on. Or tetnus. Or Hepatitis. And I really don't want public health policy dictated by the group that feels vaccine=encouragement to have sex.

What is really scarry, is the fact that they are saying give it to all mew or young Females. There have been reports already of reactions!

That seems to be the over all problem. Watch Drug Ad's and they have disclaimers about what the side effects can be?:mad:

Mew? Like, cats?!!

Yes. I've already said this.

However, I am extremely Libertarian - it is not surprising that I would feel this way, so I'm going to "rage against the machine" in that way, rather than bitching about companies (and lawmakers) working within the current system.

Are you serious?

A referendum? That doesn't even work for city-specific sales tax - you really think it would work for state- or nation-wide lawmaking?

Oh wait, you'll settle for a vote at the legislative level? With the notable exception of Texas (where I don't believe either of us currently reside), isn't that the most likely course of action even given the (now-ended) lobbying? This doesn't make any sense to me, and your sudden approval of legislative power doesn't really jive with your first point (above).

It did in Texas - however, the majority of lobbying was aimed at legislators. You seem to desire your cake, and consuming it as well - I agree with you on a conceptual level, but completely disagree with how you're expressing yourself. Very short-sighted, in my opinion.

Kittens with laser guns, MEW MEW MEW!

BWAH! There needs to be a cat macro for that.... there probably is.

Testing w/ the hotlink
http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/1751/lasercatgr4.jpg

I meant a statewide referendum on whether the vaccine should be tied to school enrollment as the best gov't way of pragmatically compelling behavior.

Ideally, ideally (I know that sounds stupid, but here I mean in Alphagamuga's fantasy land in her head) I wouldn't probably want it addressed by the government at all.

It's this kind of hierarchy: (All this assumes FDA approval; I'm kind of libertarian but not so much that I want to get rid of the FDA.)

Best: Merck puts out a product and advertises it. If it's a good one, we all want it. Our desire for it puts pressure on our insurance companies because they want to retain our employers and us as customers; they cover it. Nobody ties it to anything other than not getting cancer later.

Still acceptable: Merck puts outs a product, successfully lobbies governments to require it to be covered by insurance companies, and advertises it to the public. Nobody ties it to anything other than not getting cancer.

Starting to make my head hurt but not actually "rage against the machine" worthy: Merck puts out a product, lobbies governments and advertises to the public, the public votes in a referendum on whether this is enough of a public good to require it for school enrollment.

Minimum standard before I actually feel victimized: I'm not happy, but it's democratic and pragmatic: Merck puts out a product, lobbies governments, individual representative hear from constituents, take a vote about whether it should be mandatory for school enrollment. We can vote the bastards who voted for it out of office if we want to.

I agree that I didn't express myself well. I've gotten to the point where I think in terms of the least of many evils most of the time, rather than what should actually happen.

Merk study
 

Unfortunately any search I do with sorority and Merck comes up with the DZ issue (on news pages discussing both) or this thread :p

Hadn't heard. But college students are a common target for drug trials.. it's a good way to make money. My roommate has a smallpox vaccine for it, and possibly a herpes vaccine (not sure if she did that one). And since this is targeted at women, sororities would be a good contact point.

HPV
 

Alright, I figured out how you might have ended up with the idea that Merck was doing tests on NPC Women.

http://www.npcnow.org/newsroom/updates/enewsjune02.asp

NPC - National Pharmaceutical (not Panhellenic) Council (not Conference). :D

Actually, St. Louis University has been testing a herpes vaccine. There are several in the pipelines. I just don't remember if my roommate got it or not :)

And I'm not one who thinks that a shot = permission to have sex

Thanks!