Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by JohnRM, Feb 1, 2007.
Just another development in the long line of reductions in our personal freedom.
Is it so terrible to immunize against an STD that its suddenly a human rights violation?
I dunno about making it law but I am curious about laws on measles or (tetnis? shot) aren't there laws about giving children other vaccines.
I mean isn't hepatitus mostly gotten through sexual contact and that isn't fought agaist afaik.
Am I wrong to believe that many who would support such a law also argue the a woman has the right to decide what happens to her own body vis-a-vis the abortion issue? Hypocritical, if true.
Every person should have the right to what goes into their own body provided that there is no immediate threat to the greater population.
We got a ****load of required vaccinations anyway, so its just the pharmaceuticals looking to press another one to make money. I don't know; I guess I don't mind helping Merck if it reduces STDs.
Yes, vaccinating our kids against STDs is sending a clear message that we want them to go out and fornicate with anything that moves.
Great logic there.
If it becomes law to have to take this vaccine then it should be law to have the vaccine supplied at the lowest cost possible. Force Merck to make the vaccine available to competitors and allow a bidding war to see who produces it.
Then we'll see if Merck still thinks the vaccine should be law.
In other words... a generic?
I think if it's handled right, to the kids it's just an immunization. If you don't make a big deal about it being for a STD, then what incentive would it give girls to be sexually active?
Merck shouldn't be allowed to charge much for it, if they want to force people to use their product.
It's realy amazing how in the conservatives and liberals are realy the same.
Conservatives: They are encouraging sex the most evil thing on earth!.
Liberals: They are infringing on our rights to kill ourselves.
You don't want the vaccine? Sure thing, just don't count on the goverment if you get the cancer.
Its obligatory for a disease you can't get without, well...
I have to go with john on this one.
Being that children in the US are by law force to attend school to at least the age of 16 (age diff state to state and exclude home schooling) Any infections disease that can be transmitted in any reasonable school actives demonstrates a clear overriding public health issue superseding certain individual rights. (Lice, Flu vaccine, ect.)
HPV is not a overriding public health risk involved in any reasonable activities when attending a public school. There is no reasons of public health at school to violate their individuals or parental rights to get a HPV shot.
Therefor no laws should be enacted to force girls to get a HPV for the basis of attending public school.
yuck,.. i think i have been writing too many papers for logic class.
You don't have the right to be on a school campus without shots against meningitis, etc. Why? Because these diseases are contagious. Every person who's not vaccinated is a loophole diseases can exploit.
It's a public health issue, not a personal medical issue. By not vaccinating yourself you are endangering the health of other people.
I don't have a right to walk around the streets with **** smeared on my face = ZOMG THEY ARE RESTRICKTING MY PURSONAL FREDUMS naaaah.
Now, is HPV contagious enough to require vaccination? That's a different issue.
It's one of those lurking thingys that many people (i.e. guys) can have forever without showing symptoms, and then ten years later they infect their partners (e.g. their wives, no matter how virtuous they have been) some of whom then get cancer and die horribly. Nice.
This in no way show why it is the duty of the public school system to enforce a hpv shot on people in a public place when there is no reasonable belief in a overriding health issue of the transmission of hpv when attending school.
The above is incoherent to the point where I can't really understand what the heck you are trying to say.
No cervical cancer = no need for smear test in later life?. How much will this save the gov? This is a no-brainer. Spend usd360 now and save tens or hundreds of thousands later.
This shot needs to be given before any sexual contact, but does not mean girls have to go out and get lid the net day. If women do not need smear tests after this consider not only the massive savings but the amount of unpleasantess saved. Not the most pleasant procedure by all accounts.
I'm pretty sure this would not render smear tests unnecessary, cervical cancer is not purely caused by this virus.
Seems a little misleading if that is the case.
Yeah, it is a little misleading.
And I agree with some of the others posting here, the justification for compulsory vaccinations on the grounds of public health & the potential for transmitting disease to classmates do not make sense in the case of an STD.
Separate names with a comma.