Should HPV Vaccination Be Mandatory - Research Paper Example

?(Add (Add (Add Should HPV Vaccination Mandatory? Human papillomaviruses or simply HPVs are a group of related viruses. Some of the HPVs have the potential to cause cervical cancer and these types of HPVs are called high risk or carcinogenic HPVs. Nearly 40 types of HPVs may transmit from one person to another through sexual contact. Gardasil is a vaccine developed to prevent certain types of HPV related complications including cervical cancer and it has been duly approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Researchers indicate that cervical cancer is more prevalent in women at a younger age. However, mandatory vaccination for cervical cancer can cause a series of consequences. This paper will discuss why young girls should not be given mandatory vaccination for preventing cervical cancer. The HPV vaccination was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration recently in 2006 and therefore its long term effects are still unknown to the world. Ashton reveals that the effects of HPV vaccination can lead to fatal motor accidents and suicides. According to the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, a number of adverse side effects including pancreatitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and spinal cord inflammation have been reported since the approval of the vaccine. “Although these adverse reactions may be rare, they are not worth the risk since the vaccine only protects against two of the 15 strains of HPV that may cause cancer of the cervix” (“Should any vaccines be required for children?.”). There are also some doubts about the effectiveness of this vaccine because it was tested only on 1,100 girls; and this number is insufficient to get a clear picture of the vaccine’s ‘functionability’. Researchers have identified that around 15 types of genital HPV out of 30 are likely to lead to cervical cancer. However, the Gardasil provides coverage against only two of the 15 and therefore it cannot be considered as an effective vaccine to HPV. Hence, this vaccine provides coverage against only some limited viral strains. Evidently, the US government has not done adequate researches to explore the long term impacts of such a mandate. Since its long term implications still remain to be unknown, the mandatory vaccination is more likely to lead to additional health issues. In other words, the US government risks the public backlash through the mandatory HPV vaccination. Obviously, the HPV vaccination must not be mandated before its long term side effects are clearly identified. Ethically, parents have the ultimate right to make health decisions for their children and therefore the government should not intervene in those decisions. According to a survey conducted by the University of Michigan, 31% of parents do not support mandatory school entry vaccinations (“Should any vaccines be required for children?.”). They hold the view that they must have the authority to refuse such vaccinations. Many of the US parents hold the view that the process of vaccination is religiously wrong. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees citizens to freely exercise their religious belief. Hence, the forcible vaccination would violate the first Amendment. Similarly, this mandatory vaccination policy gives exception to boys and hence it can be considered as the direct violation of constitutional principles of equity. Forcible enforcement of mandatory HPV vaccination would result in public backlash and this situation may adversely affect childhood vaccine programs for other diseases. Many people strongly argue in favor of the proposal by pointing to other mandatory vaccinations against measles and smallpox. They ask why it is necessary to give exception to mandatory HPV vaccination while practicing mandatory vaccination against several other diseases. Here, it must be noted that the HPV is not airborne and sexual contact is the major cause of cervical cancer. The government has a potential motive to protect its people from a deadly airborne virus because such a virus may spread diseases by casual contact. As Beam strongly claims, the government does not have the moral authority to enforce mandatory vaccination against a disease that can be prevented by promoting the Bible’s plan for sex. Likewise, supporters of this proposal refer to the situation where women abstain from premarital sex and marry a person who has been carrying the virus. Beam cuts this argument by stating that “peace of mind should be obtained by personal choice and not by government coercion”. Moreover, the mandatory HPV vaccination may encourage young girls to have premarital sex or unhealthy sex practices on the strength of the belief that the vaccination would prevent the risk of cervical cancer. Rather than HPV vaccination, there are other potential measures to prevent HPV related complications. Since HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, it is possible to prevent this disease if young girls are properly educated. Healthy sexual practices would more effectively prevent the transmission of HPV than vaccines do. When an individual gets enlightened of the complications of a disease and its transmission channels, he/she would probably try to stay away from infectious situations. Since modern people are really concerned about their health, young girls may avoid situations contributing to cervical cancer, including sexual promiscuity once they get proper knowledge about cervical cancer and its risks. Such prevention measures would also assist the government to eliminate costs associated with research, development, and distribution of the HPV vaccine. Currently, it is estimated that the required three doses of the developed HPV vaccine would cost $360 and hence it is very expensive. When the vaccination is mandated, the government may be forced to bear the costs and this situation may impose huge financial burden on the nation. Since the US economy has not still recovered from the impacts of global financial crisis 2009, the government may struggle to raise funds required for this mandatory vaccination. Some policymakers strongly believe that taking millions of dollars to deficit spending for a vaccine with limited scope is a thoughtless strategy. Many parents argue that it is possible to purchase a comprehensive health package with such a huge cost. Researchers have proven that all vaccines including Gardasil are potential to cause immune system suppression and sometimes they may damage the natural immune system permanently. A group of researchers argue that artificial immunity obtained through HPV vaccination would weaken young girls’ immunity system and hence they may become more vulnerable to several other related diseases and infections. Furthermore, medical organisations often promote vaccines like HPV to create profits for vaccine manufacturers with intent to earn fiscal profits. According to a House Committee on Government Reform report, CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice includes members having financial ties to vaccine manufacturers. In addition, it has been identified that the American Academy of Pediatrics, a leading vaccination promoting organisation, receives huge amounts of money from vaccine manufacturers (“Should any vaccines be required for children?.”). The American Cancer Society (as cited in Siers-Poisson) predicts that 11,000 women would develop cervical cancer by 2007. The organisation adds that this disease may claim the life of nearly 3,700 affected women. Those numbers could be considerably reduced to women affected approximately 3,300 and resulted deaths below 715, if Gardasil keeps its promise. It seems to be a great improvement and therefore it is enough to stimulate parents to vaccinate their daughters without the government’s involvement. Reports indicate that the number of parents choosing the HPV vaccine has been increasing in the United States since its approval in 2006. To illustrate, nearly 35% of adolescents were vaccinated in the United States in 2010. This trend indicates that mandatory HPV vaccination is not essential to encourage parents to have their young girls vaccinated. In the words of Brewer, a column writer on the Wall Street Journal; “the vaccine was inadequately tested on nine- to 15-year-olds, and its effectiveness does not justify its relative high cost” (Brewer). Many of the Americans like to wait and observe how the HPV would perform over the coming years. While observing young girls with cervical cancer in United States, it seems that majority of them are poor women without potential access to healthcare. As a result, those girls do not get annual Pap smears and this condition worsens the prevalence of cervical cancer in the country. The risk of this disease could be reduced to a great extent if the country’s healthcare authorities form specific policies to target the potential risk group and screen them for cervical cancer. Therefore, the country can use the HPV vaccine development and distribution costs for improving the country’s healthcare sector and thereby reducing the risk of cervical cancer among young girls. Hence, counseling on healthy sexual practices and improvement of healthcare access would be better strategies than the mandatory HPV vaccination. From the above discussion, it is clear that the HPV vaccination should not be mandatory for a number of reasons. Firstly, the long term side effects of HPV vaccine are still unknown and hence mandatory vaccination would risk the public backlash. Secondly, this vaccine would cause to increase immoral and unhealthy practices such as premarital sex and sexual promiscuity in the United States. Thirdly, the proposal would cost the country millions of dollars and this condition in turn would add to the US’ budget deficit. Finally, current trends indicate that parents are more likely to vaccinate their daughters without the government intervention. Altogether, the mandatory HPV vaccination seems to be a useless policy. Works Cited Beam, Tony. “HPV vaccination should not be mandatory. Crosswalk.com. (n.d). Web. 25 April 2012. Brewer, Benjamin. “Should the HPV vaccine become mandatory for girls?.” Proto. (n.d). Web. 25 April 2012. “Should any vaccines be required for children?.” Vaccines. ProCon. org. (2012). Web. 25 April 2012. Siers-Poisson, Judith. CMD. (n.d). Web. 25 April 2012. Read More