Human Biology
Taking Sides
Julie Woodward
Biology 1090-F15
Taking Sides Readings
Issue 11 – Should Vaccination for HPV Be Mandated for Teenage Girls?
Yes: Joseph E. Balog believes that a principle-based approach to moral reasoning leads to the conclusion that compulsory HPV vaccinations for teenage girls can be justified on moral, scientific, and public health grounds.
No: Gail Javitt and Lawrence O. Gostin and physician Deena Berkowitz believe that, given the limited data and experience, and the fact that HPV does not pose imminent and significant risk to others, mandating HPV vaccine is premature.
On the Yes side of the article the author presents the fact that when polio was imminent, with more than 58,000 cases reported in 1952, including 21,000 cases of paralytic polio and more than 3000 deaths, the decision to implement a compulsory vaccination program for polio was an effective, legal, and ethical use of public health authority. The vaccine was effective and the incident rate for those unvaccinated was 3.6 times higher than those who were vaccinated, the Salk vaccine was 80% to 90% successful in preventing paralytic polio, and after it was introduced, an overall 60% to 70% prevention rate was achieved over the 2-3 year period. He argues that an HPV vaccine would also be ethically permissible. The amount of young people engaging in sexual intercourse makes the United States at risk for STI’s and HPV, as it is reported that 46% of people have sexual intercourse before they graduate high school, and 75% have had sexual relationships before marriage, which makes a large amount of the community.
On the No side the author presents the fact that the research on the long term effects of HPV vaccination is premature, as we do not yet know of adverse effects of the vaccination in the long-term. The author also argues that, unlike the polio vaccine that can affect anyone in school, the HPV would not be necessary for everyone, for not every child in school is sexually active, so making it required for children to go to school is not prominent.
An opinion made by the yes side is that the author suggests that it is not possible or reasonable for an alternative of educating younger people because not all parents are going to talk to their children about sexual interactions. He also states the opinion that when it comes to the autonomy of the parents, the child’s right to receive the vaccination should override the respect of the parent’s autonomy.
An opinion of the no side the author’s opinion includes that because in the past vaccines weren’t made mandatory unless they were just as likely to get someone else ill as anyone else, that it shouldn’t be mandated because only those sexually active would require HPV vaccination. Also, the author states that the Government will risk backlash by requiring another vaccination which will make the public think the government is overreaching their authority.
Lack of reasoning on the yes side includes that the author says other methods won’t work because not all parents ae going to talk to their children about sexual intercourse, which is not reasonable because its not just the parents that can educate the kids, the schools can do it. Also they do not know te long term effects.
On the No side the author says that only the sexually active need it, but she cannot predict which children would need it in comparison to those who wouldn’t because no one can predict whether or not they are going to be sexually active in the near future.
I was more impressed by the author on the no side, I think they presented more sturdy facts, as that there isn’t enough research yet, and that there would be more backlash from the public for mandating yet another vaccine as there is already controversy for mandatory vaccines now.
I have no reason to believe that any of the authors on the yes nor on the no side were bias in any way.
I believe the author on the no side is more correct for the reasons I mentioned above. When the long-term safety is unknown, and as the author says, it does not pose an imminent threat for the general population simply for being in close proximity to them at school, then right now making it mandatory is premature and ill-advised.
