A reason NOT to move to Texas

[lady_kishiria]

I grant, there are a few, but this one is new.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16975112/wid/11915773?GT1=9033

The governor there is demanding that all schoolgirls receive the new HPV vaccine. Now, I've been hoping for this vaccination for years and was overjoyed when it came out although AFAIK I'm too old to receive it. However, some politician telling parents that their daughter MUST have it sets every civil-liberties alarm in my mind to screaming.

People are arguing that it's no different than the smallpox, polio, and measles vaccines. Some parents would argue that making those mandatory impinges on their rights to raise their children, and since I've read some scary things on those vaccines I must say I'm undecided.

There is one clear difference between the above mentioned diseases and Gardasil. Those diseases are transmitted through air, water (such as in a swimming pool), or touching something an infected person has touched. HPV is usually (not always) sexually transmitted, and this has further implications to parents.

I come from a Latino family where, even Americanized as they were, my purity was very much the pillar of the family's "honour". (This, by the way, is where my much-discussed hatred of the whole concept of "honour" comes from.) I know my parents, my mother especially, would have objected to the implication that I'd be sleeping around at the age of 11. Where would my parents' rights over me be?

I know that when I was 11, the idea of being forced to have this vaccine would have outraged and upset me. I was a very pious child, with further complications stemming from an obvious case of sexual identity dysphoria, and I would have seen the clear implications that they were expecting I'd do "it" with a boy. Where would MY rights to my own body be?

Lastly, the vaccine has only been on the market a few months, so it's unknown if there are any side effects. Some should be expected; even the standard ones have them. That in and of itself would make me as a parent hesitant to have my daughter innoculated.

When I first heard of the vaccine, I pictured it as something older teens and young women would take voluntarily. Making it mandatory for middle-school girls feels like violation, not liberation. From Gardasil it's a short jump to birth control, and while I support making birth control easily available to all who need it, making it mandatory would be disgusting and wrong.

It took a while to fully articulate why this story bothers me so much. I'm looking forward to what libertarianhawk in particular has to say about it.

Comments

[garpu.livejournal.com]

Agreed...my first thought was that they're going to have a hell of a lot of lawsuits on their hands, if there are substantial side effects.

[prushrush.livejournal.com]

I find it repulsive.

Many of the vaccinations that are on the market today are known to cause cognitive defects - the rise in autism cases in the past few years has been linked (loosely) to vaccinations, and so I worry about the potential side-effects of this. Not to mention the obvious reason why this vaccine was made mandatory - lobbying.

What concerns me more than lobbying or side-effects is the seeming want of the American government to increasingly try legislate the rights of women and youth away, especially when it comes to lifestyle decisions that parents should be the ones making.

[mukhtar.livejournal.com]

I think one reason they are trying to set the age requirement so low is so that people DON'T associate it with sexual activity. You said it yourself, HPV is usually (not always) sexually transmitted, meaning there are other ways of contracting it. It also means that if the girl ever DOES have a sexual relationship (even when married) she could still contract it.

The main issue everyone has with this vaccine is that it *could possibly* be associated with sexual activity. The fact that someone is trying to dictate what people do with their own bodies in even a remote way relating to the reproductive organs is a hot spot that sets people off. If this were for any other form of cancer, people would be all for someone having it be a requirement to get into school. It's just like the flu shot, Hep A, Hep B, and numerous other vaccines, this one just has an effect on a disease that happens to be sexually transmitted.

I wonder if you would feel the same if there were a preventative medicine to stop HIV in its sexually transmitted form...

I'm not for or against it, because it doesn't affect me or anyone of my gender, but the fact that it immediately sounds like a bad idea just because it's reproductive in nature sounds like a knee jerk reaction to me.

* sits down and waits for the change on his 2 cents*

[selenite.livejournal.com]

Actually I wound up discussing vaccines with my "parent making medical decisions" hat on, so it's on the other journal:
http://selenite.livejournal.com/147912.html

I think the analogy to the HPV vaccine is clear. Given our family medical history of autoimmune disorders we won't be getting the kids any vaccines we're not convinced is necessary.

Fortunately for our daughters we're not going to be inflicting the "honour" meme on them, so that's not an issue for us directly. Safety, that we'll worry about.

[electorprince.livejournal.com]

I'm really of no opinion on it whatsoever. The Army has been force-feeding me vaccinations and immunizations even before I signed away my own rights, without regard for choice except under the umbrella of allergies to the vaccine itself (which I don't have). Precedent for the removal of choice as an option has existed seemingly forever. I can't generate enough empathy to care either way, as I fear I lack the frame of reference.

[mahogany.livejournal.com]

I've been trying to write an entry on this issue, but I keep getting too upset.

Even putting aside the false security of the vaccine (the vaccine will give protection against certain strains of HPV, but not all), and the safety concerns, this is truly repugnant.

This vaccine is in no way analogous to the highly contagious diseases that we normally vaccinate against. I'm generally pretty anti vaccine anyway, but presumably vaccinating kids against diseases like Diptheria, which could spread like wildfire in a classroom situation and is very difficult to treat, is whole world away from vaccinating against an STD, which is spread by intercourse.

Further, we're talking about eleven year old girls here. What kind of a message are we sending them (yet again)? Just because women are the ones that are at risk for developing cervical cancer as a result of HPV DOES NOT MEAN we are SOLELY responsible for its prevention, and preventing the spread of the disease. Whatever happened to education? Whatever happened to options? Heck, if the government is really that concerned about the cervical health of young women, why not make the vaccine available without parental consent, so young girls who are sexually active can access it if they wish?

In all honestly, I can't see this lasting. Govenor Perry is already getting tremendous pressure to rescind the ruling.

[letter-d.livejournal.com]

First things first:
The supposed link between MMR vaccines and increased incidence of autism and irritable bowel disease are tenuous at best. Likewise, the worries regarding thimerosal in influenza vaccines are largely an artifact of very badly informed media-drones stirring up an even worse informed population of consumers.

That said, I will address the medical aspect of this -- I'm still too winter-weary for arguing politics...

Yes, prevention through immunization is one of the primary weapons in many public health battles against disease -- and love it or lump it, grade-school immunization has worked splendidly against killers like polio and tuberculosis -- WHICH ARE BOTH TRANSMISSIBLE BY AEROSOL MEANS. On the whole, HPV is found to not be readily transmissible by contact-free methods.

Now, be aware -- I think ANYTHING that is able to reduce rate of HPV-related cervical cancer is *fantastic* -- but I don't think elementary school inoculation is the answer... especially in light of how very new this vaccine is. While not necessarily bad science as such (skirting damn close, but not quite over the edge,) this whole idea gives me a bad flashback to the fallout from widespread DES use -- yikes!

Further conversation on this topic in the public_health community.

[goreism.livejournal.com]

People have already pointed out that there are exemptions for "conscientious objectors" and the reasons for giving it to middle schoolers. But I think it's worth pointing out that the rationale for mandatory vaccinations is the whole positive externalities aspect of it: refusing to get the polio vaccine is a lot easier if most other people are vaccinated. Not making such things mandatory, in general, gives people an incentive to "free ride."

[vanatru.livejournal.com]

Boy howdy...took be about 2 minutes to decide what tac to approach this on.

As one of characters in my current WIP would say.

"But, your just a woman, what would you know about what's best for you? Leave the decisions to the men."

It's one thing for military folk to get the manditory pricks and pokes.......it comes with the job as a beni.

As for the government knowing what's best for you and yours? If you have nothing to hide or fear, why would your protest?

Now, after you get your shot, please step over to the counter and sign up for the purity dance, and then you'll be next for a female genital mutilation and collaring. Don't forget your burkha ok?

Oh wait, your hispanic.......did you bring your green card? "Hey Herb, don't include her in the survey. She's one of them."

for the sake of child sex abuse survivors could be a very good thing

[electricvelvet.livejournal.com]

when I initially heard about the vaccine and the age they were talking about various jurisdictions having it given, it gave me pause for many of the erasons listed here.

However, having had a few months to mull it over, I've changed my mind. I'm sure many of you will be upset by this but I think, assuming the vaccine is safe, that vaccination for it is a good idea.

The reasons I think so are twofold.

I come from and known quite a few people who do to, very dysfunctional families who a were in many ways, a danger to us as kids. As some parents engage in sexual abuse of their kids. If this can protect abused daughters from getting an infection through any sort of forced sex, wiether incestual or rape, I'm all for it.

Also, if a kid is being sexually abused she might engage in sex without the parents knowing.

2. I actually was exposed somehow to HPV before anyone knew much about it. I had to have an operation, when these were very new, in mu mid twenties, for dysplasia caused by the virus. I would have loved to have been able to receive a vaccine for it before that infection occured.

Now if they could just vaccinate against herpes simplex 1 - the cold sore we'd be onto something.

The heck with dignity and honour in other's eyes (something only the non-abused can afford). I'd rather have been protected from the cascer causing virus and *not* have had to have someone shoot a laser (that sounded distressingly like a shopvac) up my vagina, thank you very much. he was a good doctor but still. I'd rather any children i had be protected from the risk.

You can always get your honour and dignity back later.

[nolly.livejournal.com]

The potential transmission through non-consensual sexual contact is my strongest argument for making it as mandatory as possible.