HPV Vaccine: Mandatory?

[UGAalum94]

I don't support in being mandatory although I think it's a great idea. I think we should try to make sure it's available to everybody who wants it and is likely to benefit from it.

But I don't think it should be tied to school attendance. Most if not all of the vaccines required for school attendance are for diseases that could be transmitted at school. As crazy as the stories coming out about middle school are these days, I don't think HPV is likely to be transmitted at school.

I'm all about Merc advertising and seeking subsidies from the gov't to make sure the vaccine is distributed. I've got a lot of trouble with them lobbying governors to make executive orders or legislators to make in mandatory for school. In fact, I don't think I'd reelect an official who took this decision away from the individuals.

There are ways we can promote good behaviors without mandating non-academic things for school.

[DolphinChicaDDD]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

As crazy as the stories coming out about middle school are these days, I don't think HPV is likely to be transmitted at school.

Maybe the transmission itself might not occur at school, but it will occur as the result of being in school. In my short time teaching, I've had 2 pregnant 7th graders and 1 pregnant 8th grader. That was in one school alone (with a population of about 75 students per grade.) I won't even touch high school...or the "my friend has weird bumps...what should she do" type STDs that I got asked about (love being the bio teacher.) No, not all middler schoolers are off having sex, but some are and most are off performing sexual acts. In my opnion (read: opnion based on my experiences) middle schoolers who are engaged in behavior not suitable for their age are more likely to not use protection because they have less access to it and believe nothing will happen to them.

I'm still torn on the issue of manditory vaccination. I'm debating it with myself right now. I certianly believe it should be on the reccommended list.

kddani- I've had the first dose of the vaccine, so far I'm still alive with no side effects either. No sore arm either...the only complaints my doc had were sore arms, so now she does a shot in the butt, a la babies. More fat= less likely to be sore, according to her.

[Drolefille]

According to this: The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

Guillain-Barré syndrome can affect anybody. It can strike at any age and both sexes are equally prone to the disorder. The syndrome is rare, however, afflicting only about one person in 100,000. Usually Guillain-Barré occurs a few days or weeks after the patient has had symptoms of a respiratory or gastrointestinal viral infection. Occasionally surgery or vaccinations will trigger the syndrome.

If literally hundreds of thousands of women have received the vaccine. That is at a minimum 200,000. If the vaccine caused a particular problem, you'd see a higher rate than 3 out of 200,000. (It's more likely the numbers are even closer to 1:100,000) Particularly since it is usually caused by other infections, not medical procedures.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DolphinChicaDDD

Maybe the transmission itself might not occur at school, but it will occur as the result of being in school. In my short time teaching, I've had 2 pregnant 7th graders and 1 pregnant 8th grader. That was in one school alone (with a population of about 75 students per grade.) I won't even touch high school...or the "my friend has weird bumps...what should she do" type STDs that I got asked about (love being the bio teacher.) No, not all middler schoolers are off having sex, but some are and most are off performing sexual acts. In my opnion (read: opnion based on my experiences) middle schoolers who are engaged in behavior not suitable for their age are more likely to not use protection because they have less access to it and believe nothing will happen to them.

Yeah, I know what you mean. But I still wouldn't tie it school attendance. The vaccines that we require for school are usually for diseases fairly easily communicable through casual contact that you could expect at school. HPV, not so much.

It bugs me that schools become the medium through which various non-academic ideas for the social good are foisted on the kids. Your attendance at middle school shouldn't be in question because you refuse a vaccine for a disease that someone couldn't really get from you, even if you had, it without pretty intimate contact. Even if we allow parents to refuse it, it's still a goofy situation to put people in.

[DolphinChicaDDD]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

It bugs me that schools become the medium through which various non-academic ideas for the social good are foisted on the kids. Your attendance at middle school shouldn't be in question because you refuse a vaccine for a disease that someone couldn't really get from you, even if you had, it without pretty intimate contact. Even if we allow parents to refuse it, it's still a goofy situation to put people in.

Oh, I completely understand- and trust me, most teachers HATE IT. I think its BS that I need to devote entire lessons to character education, bullying, alcohol/drug education, to a lesser degree- sex education (yay for being moved to high school and actually have a health class!), accpetance, etc etc etc. Ideally, we shouldn't be having the debate over if the HPV vaccine should be required because the parents should be the ones who decide and who should educate their children on all of the subjects listed above.

However, parents educating thier children (as a whole, I don't mean individual because I know there are still some great parents who are acting as parents) doesn't occur anymore, and therefore it falls to the public education system and the teachers. And that is a whole 'nother debate for another thread.

I think the HPV vaccine should be at least bought up in literature for parents of girls entering into the middle school age- and not in a flyer that goes home, 90% of that information doesn't make it home. Either a mailing or depending upon the district, it should be handed out when the child enrolls. I would like to see it be one of the "reccommended" vaccines at least- like the Hepatitus vaccine and how meningitus used to be reccommended (I believe many districts now requires that vaccine.)

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DolphinChicaDDD

However, parents educating thier children (as a whole, I don't mean individual because I know there are still some great parents who are acting as parents) doesn't occur anymore, and therefore it falls to the public education system and the teachers. And that is a whole 'nother debate for another thread.

Back in the olden days (i.e. when I was a kidlet) we were shown the "Yay! Here Comes Puberty!" films (separated by boys & girls) just because there were parents who, even though they were notified the films were being shown and could elect to have their child not see them, WOULD NOT tell their kids the facts of life. Even that didn't help everyone - I still remember one of my 6th grade classmates who wore a tank top to school & hadn't shaved her pits, although she REALLY needed to. Of course, her mom was too stupid and clueless to tell her.

I'd like to think there aren't any parents like that around any more today, but I know there are.

I know a movie doesn't compare to getting a vaccine - but the simple fact of the matter is if the schools don't take care of some things they won't get taken care of - causing consequences that effect the OTHER children in the school - and that has been going on for a LONG time.

[adpi93]

I think that by making it mandatory for school attendance then it becomes covered by insurance. I know that my daughter will receive the vaccine as soon as she is old enough, with or without insurance coverage. Should parents be allowed to opt out of having their child vaccinated, yes. Parents can now based on religious beliefs. Is it advisable to opt out of vaccines, no. How much would i regret not taking steps to prevent the possibility of cancer for my daughter. Yes, HPV is transmitted through sexual contact so no they shouldn't be exposed at school. But requiring the vaccine for school attendance will make sure that those at risk are protected. And lets face it, any girl who is dating is at risk. Getting the vaccine is not granting permission to engage in sexual activity, it is smart parenting. We raise our children to the best of our ability and hope that they make the right decisions. But, should they make a wrong decision or not have a voice in the decision (rape, date-rape) I as a parent have taken steps to insure that my daughter will have one less worry.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

Yeah, I know what you mean. But I still wouldn't tie it school attendance. The vaccines that we require for school are usually for diseases fairly easily communicable through casual contact that you could expect at school. HPV, not so much.

Oh yeah, like tetanus?

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

It bugs me that schools become the medium through which various non-academic ideas for the social good are foisted on the kids. Your attendance at middle school shouldn't be in question because you refuse a vaccine for a disease that someone couldn't really get from you, even if you had, it without pretty intimate contact. Even if we allow parents to refuse it, it's still a goofy situation to put people in.

Can you think of a more convenient way to require (or even promote) vaccination?

What about the point raised earlier - that this guarantees insurance coverage for the vaccination?

Your fears of a "nanny state" really have to keep in mind pragmatism and effectiveness, don't you think?

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Can you think of a more convenient way to require (or even promote) vaccination?

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).

[Drolefille]

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

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?

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?

Originally Posted by valkyrie

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 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.

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Oh yeah, like tetanus?

Can you think of a more convenient way to require (or even promote) vaccination?

What about the point raised earlier - that this guarantees insurance coverage for the vaccination?

Your fears of a "nanny state" really have to keep in mind pragmatism and effectiveness, don't you think?

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.

[UGAalum94]

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?

[UGAalum94]

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.