Texas governor Rick Perry made headlines this week when he ordered girls entering sixth grade to receive Gardasil, the new cervical cancer vaccine. Perry drew criticism from privacy advocates and fundamentalist Christians who don't believe their children will ever have sex.
Merck, the pharmaceutical company behind Gardasil, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying the Texas legislature. And why not? The shots, at more than $350 a pop, could rake in billions of dollars in profit for the pharmaceutical giant, especially if the Texas precedent proves contagious. (A similar bill is in the works in Kentucky.)
Now, the argument can be made that the law will protect girls who lack the parental guidance to obtain the vaccine without government intervention. And certainly, the vaccine--which supposedly prevents many types of HPV, the virus that itself causes most types of cervical cancer--has its merits. If a girl is vaccinated at as young an age as 11, and she has sex at, say, 13, she'll be protected from a potentially fatal disease whose treatment costs taxpayers and insurance companies lots of money. But whether or not a girl receives the vaccine--and when she receives it--is still not for the government to decide. This is a private issue between a girl, her doctor, and her parents--especially since the vaccine is still so new. And for the governor to say, "Look, we're requiring you to be injected with a foreign substance that MIGHT prevent you from getting an STD, even though you'd rather play with My Little Ponies than so much as touch a cootie-infested boy" seems very invasive. And that Merck is pushing the issue seems so, well, murky.
Not that I'm surprised. Turn on any 'tween or teen-oriented channel, such as MTV or The-N, and you'll be bombarded by Gardasil ads filled with squeaky-clean, skate-boarding, hip-hop dancing girls who empower themselves to be "one less" woman to face cervical cancer. A vaccine is not an anti-acne wipe or hoodie sweater or iPod--but watch the commercial, and you'll see it marketed as if it were. You can almost hear the middle-aged men in suits calling out to America's teens during the commercials of Real World: Denver. "C'mon, Tiffani. . . all your friends are getting vaccinated against the Human Papilloma Virus. Jessica Simpson got vaccinated! So did Justin Timberlake. And he doesn't even have a vagina! Gardasil is cooler than smoking! It's cooler than hoodies!"
And I wonder if the ads do send the message that it's okay for teens to have sex. . . not, "Oh, I get the vaccine, and I can have sex without worrying about HPV," but rather, "Why would they want me to have the vaccine if they don't expect me to have sex? THEY WANT ME TO HAVE SEX!" As explained by a mother or a doctor, the message--you get the shot now, it works later, don't be a slut--might not get as lost. Merck may have a life-saving nectar of the gods--but they seem more interested in having hit the pharmaceutical jackpot.
Parents who do object based on "religious or philosophical grounds" may file an affidavit refusing the vaccine. But that shouldn't be necessary. Nobody should have to go on record to say they are refusing any preventative medical treatment, save for perhaps, a vaccine that prevents a disease that is highly communicable between people who are not naked together. It's nobody's business.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Having 17 & 10 year old girls & having had HPV & cervical cancer (at 19) I have mixed emotions on the whole thing, I would prefer both my daughters get this vaccine, but at the same time my middle daughter, at 10&1/2, seems young to be having a shot for sexually comunicated disease before school begins next year (it probably won't become legislated for a few more years here in VA) I agree that it does seem like a bad idea to legislate something personal & private, but I see every day through my older daughter's friends, parents who are in complete denial about their daughters sexuality & what is actually going on in their lives. These girls are playing with fire in the pregnancy category & with HPV, they'll never know until it's too late & it is with them for the rest of their lives.
Here from Micheles today.
I often wonder whether it's the government's place to enforce behaviors that parents should be enforcing in the first place.
At what point does the family give up its role as prime facilitator and guide of young people's behavior and simply hand it over to the all-knowing, all-butting-in bureaucracy?
I'm conceptually in favor of any process that protects children from horrible premature death. I'm conceptually opposed to the government enforcing the whole thing on them. I would rather make an informed decision with my wife and daughter than have my supposedly democratically elected representatives force it on me.
Nicely said, Carli.
It is not the government's place to mandate this. If they are concerned about doing things to help health, then they can outlaw cigarettes and make it illegal to smoke.
Merck needs a drug to help them make back pay all the money they owe because of lawsuits against Vioxx. I hope that other states will not even consider making this a law, and if they do, the people who vote it in should be voted out!
You put forward a great arguement and it most certainly makes sense. I am a nurse who has cared for women dying of cervical cancer, as well as young teens and "tweens" who have sti's and other not so nice sexually contracted things. Here in Australia studies are showing that kids are having sexual experiences ( which may or may not include penetration) at a younger age. While it may not be right to force girls to have this new vaccination it certainly needs to be made readily available to individuals and their parents who are making a well informed decision.
Michele sent me.
Post a Comment