There has been a lot of talk lately about making the vaccine that protects women against human papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted disease that can cause cervical cancer, mandatory.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, for example, has already made an executive order that would require girls entering sixth grade to receive the shot. A vaccine that protects women from cancer is very promising “ the less cancer out there the better, most would argue.

However, there are several opponents of the mandatory vaccine, from several different points of view.

First, there are those who oppose the idea of making the vaccine mandatory. Should we really require young women to get a shot of medicine against their own free will? Most civil libertarians would argue this goes against their freedoms, specifically the freedom to refuse unwanted substances into their bodies.

Then there are those who oppose the idea of requiring these shots for young girls because of who stands to profit from mandatory vaccines. For example, Perry required that all girls receive vaccinations of a drug called Gardasil.

The company that makes Gardasil (Merck & Co., Inc.) happened to pay Perry $6,000 in campaign contributions. Many see this as Merck trying to influence Perry in order to gain a profit from the mandatory vaccinations, as the price for the vaccinations are over $100 a shot.

For the vaccine to work properly, three shots over six months must be taken by the recipient, totaling well over $300 for a single patient. If a state requires girls to get this vaccine, then Merck will undoubtedly receive millions of dollars from it.

Finally, there are those who are opposed to the vaccine due to religious or moral reasons. Their argument relies on the assumption that if you give a young adult the means to have sex, they automatically will. So, by giving this vaccine to thousands, if not millions, of female adolescents, moral activists argue that we are encouraging them to go out and have sex because they will be protected against HPV.

While the other two arguments have some validity to their opposition, this last argument is a horrible reason to suspend vaccinations to young women seeking to prevent cancer. Young adults have access to other forms of preventative measures, including condoms, which could prevent HPV.

Sexual deviancy is not reliant on a persons prevention of disease; it is reliant on how sexual that individual is.

Teenagers are going to have sex regardless of their status of having received the vaccine or not. Additionally, the vaccine does not prevent other forms of sexually transmitted disease. The argument that more people will become sexually active because of the vaccine disregards the fact that other forms of disease are not prevented by it.

Concerns from the two other arguments against mandatory vaccinations could be alleviated by allowing parents, not the government, to make the decision that their children be protected against the virus. This would eliminate the charge that it goes against the basic right to refuse unwanted substances from entering the persons body as well as allow people to refuse Merck a paycheck by having their children vaccinated.

Additionally, the people who make the argument that the vaccine is against their morals would be happy by not having the vaccine required as well, as they could refuse the treatment under moral grounds.

The state of Texas should fund all vaccinations, but allow those who would choose to refuse them to do so. Requiring someone to receive the vaccination against their will violates their rights to refuse it under civil libertarian, economic and moral reasoning.

However, the fact that the vaccine costs over $100 a shot and requires three shots total means that many who would want the vaccine would not have the opportunity to receive it.

Any means of preventing something as serious as cancer should be covered by the state and should not be denied to anyone seeking the opportunity to prevent it.

Other states, including Wisconsin, should take a look at Texas and consider doing the same thing. While requiring the vaccine may be a bit too extreme, funding the vaccine to all who wish to have it should be a high priority for any state that wishes to prevent cervical cancer.

> Comments