Adventure Game Studio

You're getting them anyway:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948093/

Of course the parent's rights groups and conservatives are only complaining that this will encourage premarital sex.  Not that they give a crap about the girls wishes.

Check out the above article, and make sure to see the section about Gov. Perry's ties to the maker of this drug.

So what do you think?  Should we start vaccinating kids against STDs regardless of their wishes and lifestyle choices?  (Including abstinence.)

What's next?

The United States of America...The Earth's most ridiculous country.

Just like esper's thread, i am starting to feel the same way. Free country my ass.

Domino

edit: I have no idea what i am talking about. Sorry if my post looks ill-informed.

"Beginning in September 2008, girls entering the sixth grade â€" meaning, generally, girls ages 11 and 12 â€" will have to receive Gardasil, Merck & Co.'s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV.

Perry also directed state health authorities to make the vaccine available free to girls 9 to 18 who are uninsured or whose insurance does not cover vaccines."

Creepy.

Note to self: Buy shares in Merck & Co.

Good.  I don't want cervical cancer, and I don't think any other female does either.  It's appalling and shocking how ill educated some people are about sexual safety and how sexually transmitted infections actually work.  The knee-jerk reaction I've seen from some areas in the US frustrates me: young adults are going to have sex when they want to and feel ready to, not as soon as possible because they've got a shot in their arm at the age of 9 which prevents them from one of many sexually transmitted diseases.

HPV, which is what the vaccine counteracts, is only partially prevented by the use of condoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus#Condoms), so a vaccine increases the chance of personal protection against such diseases.  Whilst you -could- argue that people that choose to engage in sexual practices somehow deserve to suffer with whatever diseases they contract, I would hope that people would not take the same stance against any potential HIV vaccine.  Just because you're abstinent until marriage doesn't mean that you may not come into contact with it (especially as men can carry HPV and transmit it without knowing unless they've had a specific test.)

We already vaccinate kids against all sorts of things against their wishes, so unless you're against all vaccinations I don't see why the HPV vaccine should be singled out. 

HPV causes cervical cancer... and WE'RE GOING TO WIN THE "WAR" AGAINST CANCER, MOTHERFLUCKERS.

Bt

Quote from: LimpingFish on Sat 03/02/2007 00:50:36
"Beginning in September 2008, girls entering the sixth grade — meaning, generally, girls ages 11 and 12 — will have to receive Gardasil, Merck & Co.’s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV.

thats the cause of warts right?

yet again i said it in another post but im glad i live a simple life on a tropical island away from all the crap you see on TV like this new stuff in texas. Most i gotta worry about is trafic on the highways that they are fixing for world cup cricket which i know will never be finished on time.

Hot crap, man. This sickens me. Next it'll be mandatory abortions.

This is definitely not a country by the people, of the people, and for the people. Unless of course, you're a RICH people. Did you hear about how Paris Hilton got off completely scot free, barring a simple call from her lawyer, from a DUI?

QuoteDriving under the influence is a misdemeanor. If convicted, the defendant will not be jailed, will be given three months' probation, and will be ordered to enter an alcohol program and will have his or her license restricted for 90 days.

NOT if you're Paris Hilton...

I don't have anything against vaccinations, mandatory of otherwise, per se, but in this case it just seems a little odd.

Plus the conspiracy theorist in me is running around in circles and pointing at Gov. Rick Perry's ties to Merck. :=

Plus there may well be side effects. Look at the controversy surrounding MMR.

Quote from: Blackthorne on Sat 03/02/2007 00:52:03
HPV causes cervical cancer... and WE'RE GOING TO WIN THE "WAR" AGAINST CANCER, MOTHERFLUCKERS.

Bt

Might as well, since we can't ever win the WAR on TERROR.

Here we go again ...

Becky, if you don't want cervical cancer (which I wouldn't want either!!) then you don't you go ahead and get the shot? Ã,  But what about the person who says, "wait a minute, I don't WANT this shot, I'm going to be a nun and never have sex anyway."

Why should we single this one out?  Because they're FORCING females to be vaccinated against something they can only get by having sex.  It's not like a tetanus shot.  You don't just walk down the street and accidently fall on an infected penis.

This is very similar to the statement that the National Institues of Health made a few months ago, encouraging routine infant circumcision to help prevent the spread of STDs. Ã, Right. Ã, So we're supposed to systematically start chopping off the tip of our childrens' penises because they MIGHT decide to be manwhores and sleep with any slut on the street that'll have them. Ã, Away with rationality, let's just assume everybody is an idiot.

This all comes down to one thing: Ã, How far are we going to let our laws go in order to keep us safe? Ã, 

We're punished for not wearing our seatbelts. Ã, What's next? Ã, People keep dying in accidents so we take away all the cars and put everyone on public transportation?

Two words: Logan's Run  ;D

Yes, Logan's Run. Kill everybody when they turn a certain age. I love that movie.  :)

I don't see anyone complaining that they had vaccinations against Meningitis, TB, Measeles, Mumps, Rubella, Tetanus... etc etc etc. Why is this such a big deal?

It's not quite as simple as "don't want cervical cancer?  don't have sex!" because whilst the MAIN way of transmitting HPV might be through sex, it's not the ONLY way.  Worldwide cervical cancer is the 2nd most prevalent female cancer, in the US it is the 8th most prevalent.  Why do you think it's very strongly recommended for women to have a pap smear once every five years after the age of 21, whether they are having sex or not? 

Why does the issue of lifestyle even have to come into it?  Surely we don't want people to die?  Particularly when there is a preventative vaccine.  HPV and cervical cancer can be contracted any number of ways, why does it become an issue -just- because intercourse is one of the main ways it can be contracted?  What about cases of rape?  Whoops!  Those women wanted to stay abstinent, and now they've gone and contracted HPV.  I'll say it again, would you be against a HIV vaccine?  But the main way it's spread is through sex right?  So only those who have sex should have to go and seek it?   

Do you actually agree with ANY forms of vaccination?  Because it seems by your logic that we shouldn't have any forms of compulsory vaccination at all, because the government is interfering in our lives! 

I believe the circumcision preventing STD transmission was refuted pretty quickly, actually.

QuoteYou don't just walk down the street and accidently fall on an infected penis.

But you might walk down the street and get raped.

It is not about protecting girls from STD's, it is all about big business for these Pharmaceutical companies that make fortunes off their drugs.  The more vaccines they dispense, the more money they make. They don't care about anything but the profit margin. They figure if they can require millions of girls to be vaccinated, then the more money they make. They don't actually care what the heck happens to you as long as their profit is in the black in the end.

Don't ever take any medicines ever again then Domino.

If you want the vaccination, go get it. If you want your children to have it, bring them in to get it. But don't tell me it's good to make it a compulsory vaccination, especially when the only reason they're even doing it is because the governor is in bed with the company. Do me a favor... Google "Merck lawsuits." You'll find hey have been guilty of a long stream of crap.

It's fine to be vaccinated against Meningitis, Hepatitis, childhood diseases, etc. etc. Isn't that a federal law? This is only in Texas, where Mr. Governor has something to gain... Don't you find any of this in the least bit suspect?

EDIT: That's the point, though, Becky. If he doesn't want to take medicine, he DOESN'T HAVE TO... Unless of course the government makes it mandatory...

Choosing to refuse vaccination is not completely a matter of personal freedom, because if you get infected you don't only get the disease yourself, you also become a carrier, potentially spreading the infection to others. It's much like smoking in that respect.

So society has a legitimate interest in vaccinating people, even against their will. It doesn't really matter much if individuals feel they will not need it, especially since we know that a significant proportion of them are wrong.

As long as the vaccination itself is harmless, I don't see any problem with this whatsoever. Even if there are possible side effects, it does become a matter of statistics: is a person on average likely to be better of getting the vaccination than not?

Making it mandatory is meaningful exactly because of the sensitive issues at stake. If it was up to the girls, or their parents, how many do you think would accept a vaccination that implied they were planning to have sex?

I'm assuming that the vaccine is effective and that the decision was not influenced by personal financial gain. But even if it was bought, I would consider the policy a Good Thing.

I don't really give a crap about the particular supplier of the vaccine, conspiracy theorists can go argue about that however they like.   I am not interested in debating this issue.

I am FAR more frustrated about the lies and ignorance spread around the concept of vaccinating against a deadly cancer that just because it happens to be contracted through sexual intercourse, makes it not needed to be compulsory.  WHY is it fine to have compulsory vaccinations against other deadly, contagious diseases and not this one?  What makes it different?  Because it's passed through sex and therefore only people who want to have sex need to have it?  That's such a significant proportion of the population that it damn well might as well be compulsory. 

Quote from: Domino on Sat 03/02/2007 01:23:55
It is not about protecting girls from STD's, it is all about big business for these Pharmaceutical companies that make fortunes off their drugs.  The more vaccines they dispense, the more money they make. They don't care about anything but the profit margin. They figure if they can require millions of girls to be vaccinated, then the more money they make. They don't actually care what the heck happens to you as long as their profit is in the black in the end.

But if these girls DON'T contract HPV and DON'T get cervical cancer because of this vaccine, then that means other members of Big Pharma sell less of their drugs.

Yeah, the drug companies want to make money, but because we make them compete against each other, they actually have to be better at making us healthier than the other drug companies in order to make that money. See? We're bribing them to do good! Quite ingenious...

Quote from: Becky on Sat 03/02/2007 01:15:36
It's not quite as simple as "don't want cervical cancer?Ã,  don't have sex!" because whilst the MAIN way of transmitting HPV might be through sex, it's not the ONLY way.Ã,  Worldwide cervical cancer is the 2nd most prevalent female cancer, in the US it is the 8th most prevalent.Ã,  Why do you think it's very strongly recommended for women to have a pap smear once every five years after the age of 21, whether they are having sex or not?Ã, 

Why does the issue of lifestyle even have to come into it?Ã,  Surely we don't want people to die?Ã,  Particularly when there is a preventative vaccine.Ã,  HPV and cervical cancer can be contracted any number of ways, why does it become an issue -just- because intercourse is one of the main ways it can be contracted?Ã,  What about cases of rape?Ã,  Whoops!Ã,  Those women wanted to stay abstinent, and now they've gone and contracted HPV.Ã,  I'll say it again, would you be against a HIV vaccine?Ã,  But the main way it's spread is through sex right?Ã,  So only those who have sex should have to go and seek it?Ã,  Ã, 

Do you actually agree with ANY forms of vaccination?Ã,  Because it seems by your logic that we shouldn't have any forms of compulsory vaccination at all, because the government is interfering in our lives!Ã, 

I believe the circumcision preventing STD transmission was refuted pretty quickly, actually.

QuoteYou don't just walk down the street and accidently fall on an infected penis.

But you might walk down the street and get raped.

You can get cancer REGARDLESS of whether or not you have sex. Ã, That's partly what makes the mandatory vaccinations so rediculous. Ã, It's not going to make you immune from cancer. Ã, 

Pap smears? Ã, Keyword: Recommended. Ã, (Not required.)

The rape issue is more complex than that. Ã, You can get ANY STD through rape, not just this one. Ã, Let's say the rapist is carrying syphillis. Ã, What then? Ã, 

We don't want people to die, that's true. Ã, But in the end, it is THEY who must take responsibility for their health. Ã, Hypothetical situation: Ã, Dude eats McDonalds three times a day, gets plugged up and dies. Ã, Do we forbid EVERYBODY from eating fast food because of this?

Yeah, I agree with many vaccinations. Ã, Tetanus, meningitis, ruebella, and many more... Ã, Some are highly contagious, and can infect you through far little than the act of sex. Ã, The risk is higher for innocent bystanders to be infected.

Quote from: Becky on Sat 03/02/2007 01:33:19
I am FAR more frustrated about the lies and ignorance spread around the concept of vaccinating against a deadly cancer that just because it happens to be contracted through sexual intercourse, makes it not needed to be compulsory.Ã, 

You can't contract cancer.  It isn't contagious.

I see no reason why we should not make all vaccines mandatory, when the cost to society of treating that disease is greater than the cost of vaccination.

I wasn't talking about all cancer.  I was specifically referring to cervical cancer.  Here is a quick lesson on how it works:  HPV causes Cervical Cancer.  HPV is a virus that can be transmitted through sex (alongside other things), therefore, you can contract it.  HPV encourages anomalies in cervical tissues, causing cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV

And most STDs are more easily treatable than cervical cancer induced by contracting HPV.

Yes, and the pollutants in our air can cause all kinds of diseases, and defects, including cancer.  So how about mandatory gas masks for everybody!  That way the corporations can keep spewing tons and tons of pollution into our world every year and everybody is happy.

The government should just hand out boat loads of condoms to males. Then there would be no reason for the vaccine.  Safe Sex is the Best Sex.

Quote from: Domino on Sat 03/02/2007 01:46:44
The government should just hand out boat loads of condoms to males. Then there would be no reason for the vaccine.Ã,  Safe Sex is the Best Sex.

omg, but condoms aren't effective in total disease prevention!  Next up:  Mandatory castrations.

Here's a quick lesson on how it REALLY works: Your government doesn't care whether or not you get cancer and die horribly... Actually no, let me rephrase that... they want you to get cancer and die slowly so they can get money from the hospitals that will bill you an arm and a leg for the rest of your (short) life. You go to your state representative and try to get them to make the vaccine mandatory in your area. If they have nothing to gain from it, they won't care.

and Raggit: start a company that makes such masks and work out some kind of monetary arrangement with Mr. Bush, and that won't be so farcical... :)

I'm done with this pile of slippery slopes, straw men, and conspiracy theorists.

Grasping for straws, Raggit? You're coming across as if Mandatory HPV Vaccination killed your family and pets.

Jesus, you people are willfully ignorant.

Becky wins this thread.

Ghormak,

Naw, mandatory HPV vaccinations haven't killed my family and pets. Ã, Yet... wait till they find out it causes some other disease.

More seriously, I'm upset about this because it is such an obvious you-scratch-my-political-back-I'll-scratch-your-corporate-back manuever, and it is once again the people who get caught in the middle.

Like I said in the beginning: Ã, Where will it end? Ã, How far will the government go to make us "safer?"

Quoteand it is once again the people who get caught in the middle.

The people who are getting vaccinated against a particularly nasty form of cancer? Why is this bad again?

It is just a waste of time. People get FLU shots before winter and still end up getting the FLU, and sometimes even worse.  This vaccine might not even work.

Quote from: Raggit on Sat 03/02/2007 01:53:01
Ghormak,

Naw, mandatory HPV vaccinations haven't killed my family and pets. Ã, Yet... wait till they find out it causes some other disease.

More seriously, I'm upset about this because it is such an obvious you-scratch-my-political-back-I'll-scratch-your-corporate-back manuever, and it is once again the people who get caught in the middle.

Like I said in the beginning: Ã, Where will it end? Ã, How far will the government go to make us "safer?"

Who cares what the cause of it is as long as women are less likely to get cervical cancer?

Look up Merck's history. Lawsuit after lawsuit for negligence involved in the death of users of almost all of their drugs. Look up Gardasil. It's still in the testing phases. So technically, the girls these drugs are being forced on are guinea pigs...

I'm willfully ignorant? Fine. Call Bush, the governor of Texas, and Merck's CEO so I can kiss all their asses and join the club of the informed.

Quote from: Adamski on Sat 03/02/2007 01:56:56

Quoteand it is once again the people who get caught in the middle.

The people who are getting vaccinated against a particularly nasty form of cancer? Why is this bad again?

Because, once again, this is a sexually transmitted disease, not something you can catch if somebody else in the room sneezes. Ã, This is another case of the government saying, "Okay, it's possible that the girls out there are going be at a higher risk of cervical cancer if they sleep with the wrong guy. Ã, Therefore, let's assume all girls are at-risk whores and force them to get this shot, conviently manufactured by Merck."

It is not wrong if the girls VOLUNTEER to be vaccinated against HPV, but to force them is wrong, in my view.

It's like the seatbelt thing: Ã, You're going to assume everybody is a bad driver and force them to wear a seatbelt. Ã, But even that is more acceptable than the shot, because OTHER bad drivers around you can put you at risk, as well as road conditions, etc.

QuoteTherefore, let's assume all girls are at-risk whores

The goverment ain't assuming anything. You're the one making that value judgement right there.

I am not for any sort of mandatory anything when it comes to one's own health. But you're being ridiculous and taking a moral highground in a topic that doesn't have a strong moral strain to beging with.

Whores?

Yeah, Becky was right when she said girls could get it from rape (then again, it was also true that the rapist could have any number of STD's)... I've been on this the whole time because the drug isn't GUARANTEED to vaccinate anything... It's still undergoing a test phase. No one has any idea what the long term side effects of the drugs will be. And, like I've said, Merck is less than reputable.

Quote from: Pesty on Sat 03/02/2007 01:59:36

Quote from: Raggit on Sat 03/02/2007 01:53:01
Ghormak,

Naw, mandatory HPV vaccinations haven't killed my family and pets. Ã, Yet... wait till they find out it causes some other disease.

More seriously, I'm upset about this because it is such an obvious you-scratch-my-political-back-I'll-scratch-your-corporate-back manuever, and it is once again the people who get caught in the middle.

Like I said in the beginning: Ã, Where will it end? Ã, How far will the government go to make us "safer?"

Who cares what the cause of it is as long as women are less likely to get cervical cancer?

That's like the people who say, "Who cares if the government is reading our mail and listening to our phone calls as long it's to prevent terrorism?" Ã, It's the principal behind it that offends me.

Helm, I'm not quite seeing what you mean. Ã, What is your opinion on this particular issue?  How am I taking a moral highground here?

Quote from: esper on Sat 03/02/2007 02:01:59
Look up Merck's history. Lawsuit after lawsuit for negligence involved in the death of users of almost all of their drugs. Look up Gardasil. It's still in the testing phases. So technically, the girls these drugs are being forced on are guinea pigs...

I'm willfully ignorant? Fine. Call Bush, the governor of Texas, and Merck's CEO so I can kiss all their asses and join the club of the informed.

Yep, that's what I'm doing. Kissing all those peoples' asses. Because I'd rather NOT GET CERVICAL CANCER than uphold my pretentious self-righteousness.

You guys are all over the map here. You're bitching about so many things that your cases fall flat. Pick a problem and stick with it. If you want to argue about the political side of it, then go for it. If you want to complain about the fact that it's mandatory, great. If it's untested drugs used on people you hate, go for it. All I'm saying is that I'd much rather be less likely to get cervical cancer than worry about who's paying who to make it mandatory.

Raggit: HPV is NOT just an STD. It comes in many forms and can be just as dangerous to a nun as it can to a hooker.

I like that the only other person besides me who actually has to worry about HPV is the only person I agree with here.

Raggit is just stating that a vaccine should not be forced upon you by the government. If you need it, then it should be voluntarily given. We do have a matter of choice, and not have the gov tell us what we should do to our own bodies.

QuoteHelm, I'm not quite seeing what you mean.  What is your opinion on this particular issue?

My post seemed extremely clear. Are you making an effort to understand me or what?

My opinion on this particular issue is this: I don't think any vaccination should be mandatory. They should be opt-out at best. The only exception would be something that is highly dangerous and an infected host can pass it along so rapidly or whatever. But stuff like flu shots, measeles etc, I see no reason for them to be mandatory.

I'm not a big fan of the goverment telling me what to do.

Therefore I don't think this shot should be mandatory. But I don't think that if we were to agree some preventative shots like measeles etc are okay, then this isn't okay because it's for UNDERAGE VIRGIN WHORES ONLY.

QuoteAll I'm saying is that I'd much rather be less likely to get cervical cancer than worry about who's paying who to make it mandatory.

Then go get the vaccine. Make your kids get it. But don't assume everyone wants it. I haven't examined the method of administration yet, but if it's subdermal: my 12-year-old niece, for one, has an actual clinical fear of needles.

And, for the record, I'm against it because A) it's the government forcing people to do something, and B) it's only mandatory because certain bigwigs stand to profit from it being so. Like I said earlier, lobby to have it become mandatory in your state. If no one profits, it won't happen.

Quote from: Domino on Sat 03/02/2007 02:16:07
Raggit is just stating that a vaccine should not be forced upon you by the government. If you need it, then it should be voluntarily given. We do have a matter of choice, and not have the gov tell us what we should do to our own bodies.

I wish that were just what he was saying, because then I could actually agree with him in a way. But really, as mentioned before, what's the difference between this and a vaccine for Tetanus? I had to get all those childhood vaccines before I could go to school, and then again when I moved and my old doctor's office lost all my medical records. I didn't have a choice then, it was either that or my parents would get in trouble for not making me go to school. And HPV is something I'm A LOT more worried about than Tetanus.

Esper has a point with it being untested that I'll agree with as well, but the fact is that, if given the choice, someone who had cervical cancer would've gotten the shot mandatorily instead of dealing with cervical cancer, in spite of the risks of it being untested. This isn't the flu we're talking about, it's cervical cancer.

Wow, this is the fastest moving thread I've ever seen.Ã,  :oÃ,  Ã, I can't get a response written without having to re-do it all over again because of all the new posts!Ã,  (Not that I'm complaining.)

I sense a tremendous amount of miscommunication here.

So here's my summarized opinion on this for clarity sake:Ã,  Exactly what Domino said it is.Ã,  (Thanks for defining my opinion for me!Ã,  ;) )

I believe that this should be available (but not exclusively) to those who choose to be very sexually active and who want extra protection.Ã,  Those who choose to be abstinent should be respected by the government, and not be thrusted in line to get a shot they don't need and don't want.

Quote from: Raggit on Sat 03/02/2007 02:31:02
Wow, this is the fastest moving thread I've ever seen.Ã,  :oÃ,  Ã, I can't get a response written without having to re-do it all over again because of all the new posts!Ã,  (Not that I'm complaining.)

I sense a tremendous amount of miscommunication here.

So here's my summarized opinion on this for clarity sake:Ã,  Exactly what Domino said it is.Ã,  (Thanks for defining my opinion for me!Ã,  ;) )

I believe that this should be available to those who choose to be very sexually active and who want extra protection.Ã,  Those who choose to be abstinent should be respected by the government, and not thrusted in line to get a shot they don't need and don't want.

Did you see the part where I said HPV wasn't just an STD? I'm not sexually active but I'm still very worried about getting cervical cancer from HPV. Just because the most likely strain to cause it is sexually transmitted doesn't mean it's the only one.

Raggit, let's get right down to the crux of the matter.

Are you abstaining?

Helm, what does that got to do with it? 

Not sure if that's supposed to be a serious question or not, but I have nothing to hide: the answer is probably yes...  and no.

Yes in the sense that I'm not the type who'll go for a one night stand with somebody I pick up in a bar, but no in the sense that I'm not opposed to premarital sex, as long as I respect and trust my partner.

Isn't the point of making such things mandatory to force a certain standard of living at all levels of society? The only viable argument, as has been pointed out... twice, is that the vaccine itself is not fully tested. All other arguments fall under the "Why should I have to learn math? I should be free to be ignorant!" set of thinking or silly corporate/government conspiracy theories.

Quote from: Pesty on Sat 03/02/2007 02:33:09

Quote from: Raggit on Sat 03/02/2007 02:31:02
Wow, this is the fastest moving thread I've ever seen.Ã,  :oÃ,  Ã, I can't get a response written without having to re-do it all over again because of all the new posts!Ã,  (Not that I'm complaining.)

I sense a tremendous amount of miscommunication here.

So here's my summarized opinion on this for clarity sake:Ã,  Exactly what Domino said it is.Ã,  (Thanks for defining my opinion for me!Ã,  ;) )

I believe that this should be available to those who choose to be very sexually active and who want extra protection.Ã,  Those who choose to be abstinent should be respected by the government, and not thrusted in line to get a shot they don't need and don't want.

Did you see the part where I said HPV wasn't just an STD? I'm not sexually active but I'm still very worried about getting cervical cancer from HPV. Just because the most likely strain to cause it is sexually transmitted doesn't mean it's the only one.

Whoops, sorry I missed you on this one. Ã, If you're afraid of getting cancer (I am too) go get the shot, by all means. Ã, But let each person decide for herself whether or not it is right for her.

Quote from: Sylpher on Sat 03/02/2007 02:39:10
Isn't the point of making such things mandatory to force a certain standard of living at all levels of society? The only viable argument, as has been pointed out... twice, is that the vaccine itself is not fully tested. All other arguments fall under the "Why should I have to learn math? I should be free to be ignorant!" set of thinking or silly corporate/government conspiracy theories.

I don't think the "why should I have to learn math" argument is exactly synonomous with "why should I have to get a shot against HPV when I don't need/want it?"

The vaccine doesn't guarantee you protection from cervical cancer, nor does it guarantee protection from getting cancer anywhere else, which could be just as deadly.  As the CDC states, the best prevention for this is being sexually responsible.  (Eating right helps, too.)

Quote from: Raggit on Sat 03/02/2007 02:40:06

Quote from: Pesty on Sat 03/02/2007 02:33:09

Quote from: Raggit on Sat 03/02/2007 02:31:02
Wow, this is the fastest moving thread I've ever seen.Ã,  :oÃ,  Ã, I can't get a response written without having to re-do it all over again because of all the new posts!Ã,  (Not that I'm complaining.)

I sense a tremendous amount of miscommunication here.

So here's my summarized opinion on this for clarity sake:Ã,  Exactly what Domino said it is.Ã,  (Thanks for defining my opinion for me!Ã,  ;) )

I believe that this should be available to those who choose to be very sexually active and who want extra protection.Ã,  Those who choose to be abstinent should be respected by the government, and not thrusted in line to get a shot they don't need and don't want.

Did you see the part where I said HPV wasn't just an STD? I'm not sexually active but I'm still very worried about getting cervical cancer from HPV. Just because the most likely strain to cause it is sexually transmitted doesn't mean it's the only one.

Whoops, sorry I missed you on this one. Ã, If you're afraid of getting cancer (I am too) go get the shot, by all means. Ã, But let each person decide for herself whether or not it is right for her.

I really have to ask this now. Are you from the US? If not, that may explain why you don't seem to get the fact that there are a lot of mandatory vaccines here. Like I (and many others) have said, what's the difference between getting a vaccine for tetanus and getting a vaccine for HPV?

Quote from: Raggit on Sat 03/02/2007 02:44:22

Quote from: Sylpher on Sat 03/02/2007 02:39:10
Isn't the point of making such things mandatory to force a certain standard of living at all levels of society? The only viable argument, as has been pointed out... twice, is that the vaccine itself is not fully tested. All other arguments fall under the "Why should I have to learn math? I should be free to be ignorant!" set of thinking or silly corporate/government conspiracy theories.

I don't think the "why should I have to learn math" argument is exactly synonomous with "why should I have to get a shot against HPV when I don't need/want it?"

The vaccine doesn't guarantee you protection from cervical cancer, nor does it guarantee protection from getting cancer anywhere else, which could be just as deadly.  As the CDC states, the best prevention for this is being sexually responsible.  (Eating right helps, too.)

Which, again, falls under the it being properly tested and not if it should be mandatory or not.

Pesty:

Yes, born and raised in the US. Ã, 

I'm having difficulty finding a list of what vaccines in America really ARE mandatory. Ã, If anybody can find such a list, please post it here.

Let's talk about tetanus vaccinations. Ã, I'm not sure if tetanus vaccines are mandatory or not, but I wouldn't be as opposed to them if they were, simply because you can get infected with tetanus very easily. Ã, You step on a rusty nail, you have 72 hours to get protected against something that can kill you. Ã, (The mortality rate for tetanus is somewhere around 30%, I think.)

You're going to be making a conscious decision to have sex, and should know the risks. Ã, 


Sylpher:  Agreed.

You may need to understand Texas to understand this.
Firstly, there are a lot of immigrants. If parental consent is required, it will likely not be given, because the parents don't speak much English and want to have as little to do with the schools as possible. Also, these parents are mostly very catholic and opposed to anything that hints at sex.
Secondly, there are a large number of medically uninsured children, so the best way to get this vaccination to children is to give it at school.
Thirdly, it's in the bible belt, so vaccinations against something that is perceived to be transmitted sexually are a taboo subject.

I am all for this if it's safe. I haven't looked into the results of the clinical trials.
It galls me to agree with something Rick bloody Perry is doing, and particularly to see how in the pocket of the drug company he is, but that's not a reason to dismiss it out of hand.
$360 per child does seem like price gouging, given how many of these will be administered over the next few years.

Mandatory vaccines are generally for infectious diseases, where opting out is to push the risk of the vaccination onto other people and therefore very selfish.
In this case though, making it mandatory is to break the taboo.

Raggit, HPV is not just transmitted sexually, and anyway, how many teenagers "make a conscious decision to have sex", weighing up the risks and so on? It's often impulsive, hence the large number of teenage pregnancies.

Quote from: Raggit on Sat 03/02/2007 03:02:43
Pesty:

Yes, born and raised in the US. Ã, 

I'm having difficulty finding a list of what vaccines in America really ARE mandatory. Ã, If anybody can find such a list, please post it here.

Let's talk about tetanus vaccinations. Ã, I'm not sure if tetanus vaccines are mandatory or not, but I wouldn't be as opposed to them if they were, simply because you can get infected with tetanus very easily. Ã, You step on a rusty nail, you have 72 hours to get protected against something that can kill you. Ã, (The mortality rate for tetanus is somewhere around 30%, I think.)

You're going to be making a conscious decision to have sex, and should know the risks. Ã, 


Sylpher:Ã,  Agreed.

HPV IS NOT JUST AN STD. You acknowledge this and yet you STILL are talking about it as if it is. So you say you're not opposed to people getting mandatory tetanus shots. So clearly you're not opposed to people getting mandatory shots.

I'm sorry, I can't continue this. You're clearly only bothered by the idea of a mandatory HPV vaccine because you think it's an STD. Which I've already said it's not. Maybe you should think about your stance on mandatory vaccinations a little more.

Yeah. I'm kinda floating in the middle here. I'm not sure why you guys are so caught up in the STD issue... I understand and respect all the women agreeing with it. But the main issue for me, being a male and therefore exempt, is this: How is it a conspiracy theory that an UNTESTED drug is mandatory? I could see if it was "Miracle drug proven to ward against HPV!" But it's not. It's not even in any advanced stage of testing. From what I understand, it's not through the initial stages, and they're just now doing the drug/placebo test. It could be that any results the drug has shown has been purely psychosomatic, and it's also possible that long term effects could CAUSE cervical cancer, or something comparable. So then, why is it mandatory?

Because it can make people in certain echelons money. No conspiracy theory there...

There are some 30 types of HPV that are sexually transmitted. Ã, I think that's what we're talking about here, right? Ã,  Only about a dozen cause any form of cancer. Ã, This, by the way, includes penile cancer, too. Ã,  That means it can potentially affect me, but I'm not at all worried about it.Ã,  I don't want to be told I have to have a shot for it.Ã, 

There are numerous other kinds of HPVs, some which are relatively harmless. Ã, (For instance, the kind that just cause worts.) Ã, I don't think we need to have mandatory vaccines against THAT, do we?

It is my understanding that these most dangerous forms of HPV are sexually transmitted, and therefore we should put more emphasis on teaching personal responsibility, and not just giving people a shot in place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus#Skin_warts


I am feeling lost myself at this point.  The last two hours are a bit of a blur, and I'm left with some more research and re-assessing to do.

esper, it's been approved by the FDA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil

Vioxx has been too, but it's been at the helm of quite a few negligent death suits for Merck & Co.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/prescription/

Look further down at the explanation of the drug's testing phase. Nothing is known about it's long term effects yet, and it's not even a completely sure thing that it does any good... or doesn't do any harm, as it were.

Man, now that the dust is settling I feel like a jerk.  (Note to self: Take breaks in between rapid responses.)

Going over the thread, it looks more of a fight than a debate, which is partly my fault.

I'm sorry if I acted like a prick to any of you.  (Especially Becky)


However, I still don't support this vaccine.   ;D

Quote from: Snarky on Sat 03/02/2007 01:27:15
I'm assuming that the vaccine is effective and that the decision was not influenced by personal financial gain. But even if it was bought, I would consider the policy a Good Thing.

Quote from: Pesty on Sat 03/02/2007 02:11:22
I like that the only other person besides me who actually has to worry about HPV is the only person I agree with here.

That hurts.  :'(

;)

Quote from: Raggit on Sat 03/02/2007 03:02:43
Let's talk about tetanus vaccinations. Ã, I'm not sure if tetanus vaccines are mandatory or not, but I wouldn't be as opposed to them if they were, simply because you can get infected with tetanus very easily.

Why does that matter? By your logic, shouldn't it be up to me to decide whether I'm at risk for tetanus?

And given that I don't think tetanus is particularly contagious (in 72 hours I won't have much opportunity to infect anyone anyway), it's not like there's a real public health concern, unlike with HPV.

Quote
You're going to be making a conscious decision to have sex, and should know the risks. Ã, 

Not if you get raped, you're not. Even if we ignore the other ways you can catch it.

Like Steve said, it's precisely because so many people are hysterical and irrational about anything to do with STDs that a vaccine like this should be made mandatory.

Now, I agree that taking some drug that is still in trials and injecting it into all girls in Texas might be moving a bit fast, but that's a separate issue. If we assume that the vaccine is safe and effective, and the price isn't insanely disproportionate to the good it will do, then this strikes me as an excellent policy.

Quote from: Snarky on Sat 03/02/2007 04:35:32

Quote from: Snarky on Sat 03/02/2007 01:27:15
I'm assuming that the vaccine is effective and that the decision was not influenced by personal financial gain. But even if it was bought, I would consider the policy a Good Thing.

Quote from: Pesty on Sat 03/02/2007 02:11:22
I like that the only other person besides me who actually has to worry about HPV is the only person I agree with here.

That hurts.Ã,  :'(

;)

Quote from: Raggit on Sat 03/02/2007 03:02:43
Let's talk about tetanus vaccinations. Ã, I'm not sure if tetanus vaccines are mandatory or not, but I wouldn't be as opposed to them if they were, simply because you can get infected with tetanus very easily.

Why does that matter? By your logic, shouldn't it be up to me to decide whether I'm at risk for tetanus?

And given that I don't think tetanus is particularly contagious (in 72 hours I won't have much opportunity to infect anyone anyway), it's not like there's a real public health concern, unlike with HPV.

Quote
You're going to be making a conscious decision to have sex, and should know the risks. Ã, 

Not if you get raped, you're not. Even if we ignore the other ways you can catch it.

Like Steve said, it's precisely because so many people are hysterical and irrational about anything to do with STDs that a vaccine like this should be made mandatory.

Now, I agree that taking some drug that is still in trials and injecting it into all girls in Texas might be moving a bit fast, but that's a separate issue. If we assume that the vaccine is safe and effective, and the price isn't insanely disproportionate to the good it will do, then this strikes me as an excellent policy.

Sorry, let me restate.

I like that the only other person besides me who actually has to worry about HPV is one of the only people I agree with here. I also agree with Snarky.

Better?

Also, Raggit, I still don't understand why you support mandatory tetanus vaccines and not mandatory HPV vaccines. If it's because it's untested, then that's a reasonable concern, but if it's just because one has strains that are sexually transmitted and the other isn't is a really bad reason not to support something that could potentially save many lives.

Again, I don't know which vaccines are mandatory and which ones aren't.

However, one tetanus shot is only good for so long.  After you get poked and scratched enough, you need another one.  You're totally free to choose not to get that shot, and go ahead and take your chances with tetanus.

I guess the reason I'm more comfortable with giving kids mandatory shots for measles, small pox, meninigitis and so fourth is because many of those kinds of diseases are highly contaigious, transmissible through any kind of contact, not just sexual.

Again, it is my understanding that these most harmful kinds of HPVs are SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED, and therefore are only a high risk if you're sexually active with many partners.  That's what I'm basing my opinion off of here.

Quote from: Raggit on Sat 03/02/2007 05:35:21
Again, I don't know which vaccines are mandatory and which ones aren't.

However, one tetanus shot is only good for so long.Ã,  After you get poked and scratched enough, you need another one.Ã,  You're totally free to choose not to get that shot, and go ahead and take your chances with tetanus.

I guess the reason I'm more comfortable with giving kids mandatory shots for measles, small pox, meninigitis and so fourth is because many of those kinds of diseases are highly contaigious, transmissible through any kind of contact, not just sexual.

Again, it is my understanding that these most harmful kinds of HPVs are SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED, and therefore are only a high risk if you're sexually active with many partners.Ã,  That's what I'm basing my opinion off of here.

I'm sorry, I'm done with this debate then. I can't keep going around and around in circles with you about this. How many more times do I have to say "HPV IS NOT JUST AN STD. IT IS ALSO DANGEROUS TO PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT SEXUALLY ACTIVE." before you actually listen to me? If I were to be diagnosed with cervical cancer tomorrow from HPV, what would your argument be then?

I'll end this with saying that I think your reasoning is weak. It's okay when it's other diseases, but if it's something that can be related to sex, OH NO MANDATORY VACCINATIONS ARE WRONG?

Quote from: Raggit on Sat 03/02/2007 05:35:21
I guess the reason I'm more comfortable with giving kids mandatory shots for measles, small pox, meninigitis and so fourth is because many of those kinds of diseases are highly contaigious, transmissible through any kind of contact, not just sexual.

Again, it is my understanding that these most harmful kinds of HPVs are SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED, and therefore are only a high risk if you're sexually active with many partners.Ã,  That's what I'm basing my opinion off of here.

Well, you've convinced me. Let's only vaccinate those girls who might potentially have sex at some point in their lives.

I think that if it works in much the same way as tetanus does, ie, prevents illness and death, then why should it be a problem that people are being given it? 

I agree that the circumstances surrounding the decision need to be investigated by some third party group, and the safety of the drug established.  If/when this is done, though, I see no problem at all with mandatory vaccinations, since parents typically don't even explain (or even understand in many cases) the many possible consequences of sex, and kids tend to be too naive to understand the implications.

Get those shots, womenfolk!

Yes indeed, get those shots... but don't make them mandatory.

Like Pesty, I simply don't know what else to say. 

Yes, I am fully aware that there more strains of HPV that are not sexually transmitted.  I adressed that earlier.  Perhaps you missed it. 

I've attempted to make my stance as clear as possible, while evidently not doing a very good job. 

So in conclusion:

I think that any female who doesn't want to get these sexually transmitted HPVs should go get that shot as soon as possible.

Whenever the government takes one more step into the private lives of citizens, I oppose it.  Quit telling me that I MUST do this and THAT in order to be "safe."  I'll take responsibility for my own health, thank you very much.

Truly, I don't understand how there's an argument here. I don't see this as being that negative of a thing. However, I do agree that people should be given a choice. Moreover, people ARE given a choice. You just read an article, and are inflamed by it, but the things it doesn't mention, is that each state has to provide for a way to waive the use of a vaccine. People have the freedom not to take this vaccine if they want, assuming their intelligent enough to find out what paperwork needs to be filled. I have avoided many vaccines I "needed" to take this way. There is no way for them to force you to take anything, because they have to provde for religious and personal beliefs. So stop arguing about not having freedom, you do have freedom, you just have to sign shit for it.


-MillsJROSS

Quote from: esper on Sat 03/02/2007 03:28:27Look further down at the explanation of the drug's testing phase. Nothing is known about it's long term effects yet, and it's not even a completely sure thing that it does any good... or doesn't do any harm, as it were.

Ever here of phase 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_trial#Phase_IV) testing?

QuotePhase IV trials involve the post-launch safety surveillance and ongoing technical support of a drug ... designed to detect any rare or long-term adverse effects over a much larger patient population and timescale than was possible during the initial clinical trials.

You might also find this interesting (quoted from this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil)):

QuoteThe drug is also approved for use in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and countries of the European Union ....

... A panel of experts, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, gave their approval for the vaccination of Gardasil on children as young as 9 years old. The ACIP recommended that Gardasil be placed on the childhood immunization schedule at the 11 to 12 year old visit. They also recommended that the vaccine be included in the federal Vaccines for Children Program, which would provide the vaccines free of charge to children under the age of 18 who are uninsured.

Legislation has been introduced in the state of Michigan to require Gardasil. If passed, this would make them the first state to require that its school children be vaccinated.

Australia's government announced on 29 Nov 2006 that they will provide this vaccination to all 12-26 year-old girls in 2007. After two years, the program will be scaled down to 12-13 year old girls only. Australia also approved Gardasil for boys 9-15 years old, but Australia is not providing government funding for vaccinating boys.

To suggest that schoolgirls are being turned into guinea pigs for an untested and unapproved drug is just uninformed.

How about this (from this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccine))?

QuoteOf the more than 120 known HPV types, 37 are known to be transmitted through sexual contact. Infection with sexually transmitted HPVs is very common in adult populations worldwide.

Or this (from this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hpv))?

QuoteGenital HPV infection is very common, with estimates suggesting that up to 75% of women will become infected with one or more of the sexually transmitted HPV types at some point during adulthood.

I think the case can be made that this is a rather widespread health issue. And I don't see why the fact that this disease is transmitted through sexual contact (as well as other ways) should have anything to do with whether vacciniation should be mandatory or not.

Perhaps you're upset that the Texas governor bypassed the state legislature through an executive order, or that it appears he's in Big Pharma's pockets? OK, that's valid. Then I encourage you to do something about it: contribute to foundations working for campaign finance reform, write letters to your local government representatives and encourage others to do so. There's one thing that influences politicians more than money: the fear of not being re-elected. "By the people, for the people" sounds all well and good, but it does require "the people" getting off their asses and making their will known.

I used to bother with that crap. Then I experienced this firsthand:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/11/INGHT44JFQ1.DTL

And I still don't care if they say it's ready or not, or if they say it's safe or not. The simple fact is that it is not fully tested. I return your interest to the link I posted earlier: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/prescription/

What's the purpose of linking to the Phase IV article, that plainly says this:

QuoteSuch adverse effects detected by Phase IV trials may result in the withdrawal or restriction of a drug - recent examples include cerivastatin (brand names Baycol and Lipobay), troglitazone (Rezulin) and rofecoxib (Vioxx).

Note that Vioxx was pulled AFTER several negligent death lawsuits!!!!

I bring your attention to this interview question with Paul Seligman, Director of the office of Drug Safety in the FDA:

QuoteWhat don't we know about a drug at the time it's approved?

There are a lot of things that we don't know about a drug at the time that it's approved. First of all, because of the limited number of people who were studied during the clinical trial phase, rare adverse events are often difficult to pick up during that phase.

For example, for a serious side effect that occurs once in every 10,000 prescriptions, if you have a clinical trial that only studies 350 individuals in three separate arms, it may be very difficult to understand or to pick out that piece of critical information.

Once a drug is marketed and used in tens [of thousands], hundreds of thousands, or even millions of individuals, it's more likely for that rare adverse event to occur.

There are also lots of other things that we don't know at the time a drug is approved. For example, it's hard to fully characterize the entire range of use of a particular medication, once it is on the market.

The general population is a complex one. People have many underlying illnesses. They use many different kinds of drugs. They have many different kinds of diets. They use different kinds of dietary supplements or herbal medicines. All of the potential interactions, underlying illnesses -- co-morbidities, as they are called -- can contribute to the underlying risk profile of the drug, and can result in an unintended or unpredicted adverse event. ...

If adverse side effects are so rare that they don't show up in the trial phase, chances are that they're negligible compared to the number of lives the vaccine is going to save because they don't get cancer.

Quote from: esper on Sat 03/02/2007 18:01:21I used to bother with that crap. Then I experienced this firsthand:

So what did you do after that? Encourage others to do the same to show that the issue mattered to more people than just yourself? Organize a grass-roots campaign to get people to vote against him the next time he was up for election? Contribute to organizations and campaigns that supported the opposing viewpoint? Or just give up? In order to cause change, you need to make him care - by showing him that you can throw him out of office if he doesn't listen. No one claimed that this is easy.

QuoteAnd I still don't care if they say it's ready or not, or if they say it's safe or not.

So, if experts in the field aren't competent to decide this, then who is?

QuoteWhat's the purpose of linking to the Phase IV article, that plainly says this:

What Snarky said. Every new drug comes to market with the long-term side affects not clearly known, and Gardasil is no different. I don't see what your issue is with this particular drug being "untested."

QuoteNote that Vioxx was pulled AFTER several negligent death lawsuits!!!!

Yes, and there's more to the Vioxx case than "the drug got approved and then killed people." Merck may have misrepresented their test results in order to gain approval in the first place. This doesn't necessarily mean a fault in the system, only that Merck lied to get their drug approved.

A) I don't mess with governmental affairs anymore. Before I left New England, I attended events for people who want to make a change starting in their community without bothering with writing to their uncaring congressperson. My brother tells me he's seen a community that's taken this so far they print and use their own paper money. Forget the government. They won't help. They don't care. Change needs to start in the people themselves, in the community.

as for B) check your own D). You've answered your own question.

C) My problem is that it's mandatory. But, since you can get out of it, simply by signing a waiver, that's not even really that big a deal. The main problem is all the people that will go along with it because it's mandatory, not thinking about being able to waive it, and having to spend... how much did you say? Up in the 300's? It's all a moneymaking scheme. And it doesn't affect me in any way, so I don't have anything more to say about it. I put up a bit of a fight, but in the long run I heartily agree with Becky and Snarky.

It's not a big issue, definitely not worth the argument, especially since it doesn't affect me. Nothing affects me, because I don't let it. I'm bothered that this is just a whole way for rich people to get even richer, but again: it has nothing to do with me. And if it did, alas: there are ways to get out of it. So...

Quote from: John LennonLet it be...

And @ Snarky: I'm only joking now, so don't take offense, please...

Quote from: Mr. SpockThe good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

Quote from: esper on Sat 03/02/2007 19:31:38

Quote from: John LennonLet it be...

That would be Paul McCartney ;)

Quote from: esper on Sat 03/02/2007 19:31:38Forget the government.

OK, fine, you're entitled to feel this way. I would only comment that if you choose not to play a part in the way you're governed or understand all the issues at play, then you really shouldn't complain when things don't go your way.

Quoteas for B) check your own D). You've answered your own question.

I don't really see how one refutes the other. Most systems fail when deliberate attempts are made to deceive it. If anything, I'd this this means you should avoid being an early-adopter until all the loose ends fall out - but I'd say this goes for anything. In the end, Vioxx still probably helped more people than it harmed. What's unfortunate is that, since Merck may have withheld information, it wasn't possible to avoid using the drug on people that may have reacted adversely to it. Certainly they should be held accountable for this and see if the system can be improved to prevent something like this in the future. But I'm not gonna throw out the baby with the bath water.

QuoteLet it be...

Fair enough (whoever may have said it!).

I don't think people object to young women being vaccinated against the underlying cause of cervical cancer, nor to proactive action against any disease/STD/miscellaneous.

Things about this story that interest me:

1. The mandatory nature of the procedure.
2. The supposed links between Rick Perry and Merck, and Merck's history in general.
3. The seemingly arbritrary age bracket decided upon.
4. The nature of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole.

I don't quite agree with the "If it prevents this or that, I don't care about the motives" argument, anymore than I agree with the "Free will! Free Will!" argument.

Tap water in Ireland has flouride added to it at source, the result of a sixty year old government decision to proactively battle tooth decay among the lower classes. The only choice you have is whether you take it upon yourself to filter your tap water or not.

Flouride is a poison in large doses, with its detracters citing it as a possible link to increased chances of developing various bone disorders and even cancer.

I don't dispute the benefits of such treatments, but I can't ignore the flipside either.

And I have no choice in the matter, because my government has decided for me.

QuoteIf adverse side effects are so rare that they don't show up in the trial phase, chances are that they're negligible compared to the number of lives the vaccine is going to save because they don't get cancer.

You keep making these utilitarian ethics statements in this thread... I don't know how seriously I should take them. Please tell me.

This debate is moving in circles so much I get dizzy from reading it. Please choose your argument and stick to it.

Mandatory vaccination is wrong because huge corporations, kneedeep in corruption, benefit from it in shady fashion.
This is a pertinent argument, but it should be aimed at society at large, at the system which allows for such back-scratching practices. Everything you consume, medicines and hamburgers alike, fall under this category.
Mandatory vaccination is wrong because it violates the citizen's right to make their own decisions etc
There are numerous thing that people wouldn't do if it wasn't mandatory. It's naive to think that if everything was optional, people would always do what's best for them and their fellow humans. People are generally uneducated, uniformed and most of all lazy.
Mandatory vaccination (in this particular case) is wrong because it encourages people to have sex more casually.
This is how conservative islamists advocate the wearing of the Burqa.
The religious belief that sex is sinful leads religious fanatics to regard STD's as a fair punishment from God himself. If you break the connection sex-STD's, you interfere with how God carry out justice.

If God didn't want us to have sex all the time, he shouldn't have made it feel so damn good.

QuoteMandatory vaccination is wrong because it violates the citizen's right to make their own decisions etc
There are numerous thing that people wouldn't do if it wasn't mandatory. It's naive to think that if everything was optional, people would always do what's best for them and their fellow humans. People are generally uneducated, uniformed and most of all lazy.

There are two things to be said about this: If humanity is predisposed towards stupidity, then who are you - or the goverment - to try to salvage them from their own predisposition? Do we really need a goverment to hold our hand when it comes to fundamental personal-rights issues like what you inject in your bloodstream? If someone wants to destroy themselves through negligence, so be it.

The goverment should try to educate and inform, not force the wellbeing of people.

Second issue is: if it is as you say and humans are stupid and make the wrong choices, then how does it [the mandatory supplying of shots] help to shift this paradigm from such, to humans being responsible? When was pro-activity, saneness and intelligence ever encouraged by other people making your choices for you?

The goverment should strive to make one's options known to them and then trust humanity to make a honest and informed judgement call. If they do not believe this is possible, they're not really a democratic goverment at all and should not be trusted not with our wellbeing to begin with.

You're ignoring the fact that most of the decisions that your government is making for you, also protects your society from you.
It's unlawful to drive a car under the influence of alcohol not only because you might kill yourself, but also because you might kill other people too.
You have to attend school up to a certain level, because it's mandatory that you have a basic insight in how different aspects of society work in order for you to vote, as a citizen in a democratic system. To rephrase this with a twist; you're not free to be as ignorant as you want.
If you are a potential carrier of a contagious disease, you may have to undergo vaccination to prevent a spreading of said disease.

PS:
Now don't get me wrong here, I'm generally strongly opposed to governmental big-brothering. I'm against constant camera-surveillance, I'm against that the authorities can eves-drop on any individual cintizen, record their phonecalls, emails etc (wherever they can) and patriot acts.
But vaccination doesn't sort under this practice. It's not like they insert a beacon or a bug or anything.

Quote from: Helm on Sun 04/02/2007 12:02:45
You keep making these utilitarian ethics statements in this thread... I don't know how seriously I should take them. Please tell me.

If you wish to respond, you may take them in perfect seriousness. Almost anything you can do, and certainly all policy decisions, has pros and cons. When it comes to medicine, there's no such things as a perfectly safe procedure. If you give someone an antibiotic to clear up their infection (syphilis, leprosy, strep throat, take your pick), they may die from an allergic reaction. But antibiotics save orders of magnitude more people than it kills. It's all a numbers game, statistics.

(That doesn't mean we should be insensitive to, or not try to minimize, the negatives, of course.)

Okay, so you're serious.

If a drug possibly kills people, it should be administered to them if and only they are made aware of all possible side-effects and they still agree to take the medicine. If they're obligated to take a medicine that might do them harm, don't you see something wrong with that?

Helm, early smallpox vaccinations had as high as 2% mortality rates and yet were made mandatory in many countries. Was this a bad thing?

Most modern vaccine concerns are not about the vaccines themselves but for the possible risk of the mercury-containing preservatives used with them. Some people think they cause autism, but these usually in cases of much smaller children and in any case, the WHO and most major studies disagree: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal

QuoteHelm, early smallpox vaccinations had as high as 2% mortality rates and yet were made mandatory in many countries. Was this a bad thing?

I have absolutely no problem saying a resounding YES to that and I'm shocked you do not do the same.

QuoteIt's unlawful to drive a car under the influence of alcohol not only because you might kill yourself, but also because you might kill other people too.

The case in point is closer to the goverment making you wearing your own seatbelt MANDATORY than it is ruling against driving under the influence.

I would make an exception in vaccination of really fast-spreading and deadly illments, but smallpox ain't it. For example, if we found the cure for AIDS I wouldn't be against third world countries having emergency mandatory shots for everybody, but even if not everybody got them, in a space of time of one or two generations the disease would be killed off anyway due to how many *have* got it as opposed to how many are vaccinated against it.

The best-case scenario is always to give people the reasoning tools to make their own choices for themselves. I don't see what's going on in america with this specific vaccination is doing that. It's in Texas (localized) somebody is profiting from it, some people may be in danger from it, and it's mandatory. It makes no sense.

QuoteYou have to attend school up to a certain level, because it's mandatory that you have a basic insight in how different aspects of society work in order for you to vote, as a citizen in a democratic system.

You have a few obligations towards the state, and the state has a few obligations towards you. Basic school attendance is one of them. Possibly dying from side-effects of nebulous medicine is not.

Quote from: Helm on Mon 05/02/2007 13:37:20
The case in point is closer to the goverment making you wearing your own seatbelt MANDATORY than it is ruling against driving under the influence.

And rear passengers without seatbelts have crushed the occupants of the front seats in car accidents. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdhqbqoa5bQ

You're also forgetting that the average American is too stupid to assess the risk/benefit objectively.

If that's how an american goverment feels and bases its governing on, then it's not a democratic goverment and should be removed immediately.

Well, Duh!

It does not befit a grown man in a serious discussion to say 'well, duh' as some sort of reply.

Quote from: Helm on Mon 05/02/2007 16:14:53
If that's how an american goverment feels and bases its governing on, then it's not a democratic goverment and should be removed immediately.

Amen.

-

QuoteYou have a few obligations towards the state, and the state has a few obligations towards you. Basic school attendance is one of them.
Possibly dying from side-effects of nebulous medicine is not.

I see the state as a contract. You give up some of your rights in exchange for safety.
This contract is constantly subject to change to find a suitable balance between freedom and a sense of security, and I don't see why dying from side-effects of a medicine could not be one of these, as many states have terms that could lead to your death, like defending your state in a time of war.

The problem is that ideally, every person should be able to leave, join or create states and contracts according to their wishes, but in practice, existing states coerce individuals and other states, threaten with retaliation etc.

QuoteSecond issue is: if it is as you say and humans are stupid and make the wrong choices, then how does it [the mandatory supplying of shots]
help to shift this paradigm from such, to humans being responsible?
When was pro-activity, saneness and intelligence ever encouraged by other people making your choices for you?

You have only made the choice to let more talented individuals convince others for you. You are really still making all the choices, but through intermediaries. If you are unhappy with the outcome of your intermediary's actions, you are hopefully given an opportunity from time to time to choose another person or run for this position yourself.

While real experts can only provide numbers and facts, the choices we make upon those facts are individual value judgements. You are still responsible to educate yourself, to know the facts so that your values will have a good ground to base themselves on. You are also responsible to find the best person who not only has similar values as you but can convince others better than you can. The responsibility does not disappear anywhere even when electing someone. If people are lazy, irresponsible and uninformed, it will reflect in how the state and elected officials act, and if you have had the opportunity to vote, you are part responsible for every atrocity and good that has been made in the name of the state.

QuoteIf that's how an american goverment feels and bases its governing on, then it's not a democratic goverment and should be removed immediately.

Even if you are voting for a person who says that the average American is too stupid to assess the risk/benefit,
you are acting democratically. If an elected government bases it's governing on such opinions and the voters were aware of what they were voting for, I see it as a democratic and representative government.

Quote from: Helm on Mon 05/02/2007 13:37:20
I would make an exception in vaccination of really fast-spreading and deadly illments, but smallpox ain't it.

Errr... smallpox was responsible for an estimated 300â€"500 million deaths in the 20th century. As recently as 1967, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that 15 million people contracted the disease and that two million died in that year.

I had previously read that as "smallpox it ain't", thinking you meant that HPV wasn't as dangerous, but it isn't.

Another thing I found, just reading about it, is that it is described as a "prophylactic vaccine". Perhaps some of the conservatives misunderstood what "prophylactic" really means...

Quote from: TheVintageDemon on Mon 05/02/2007 17:37:51
Well, a bit of an obscure and weird title there. But anyway, pre-marital sex is wrong according to Christian beliefs. Oui, moi est Christian!!

Did you even read the thread or are you just responding to a thread title? Married people can get HPV too!

-

Quote from: TheVintageDemon on Mon 05/02/2007 18:06:05
You're correct there. Well, even so, people should go for a compulsory STD test anyway.

Which STD? And when? And why?

Quote from: biothlebop on Mon 05/02/2007 17:41:22
I see the state as a contract. You give up some of your rights in exchange for safety.
This contract is constantly subject to change to find a suitable balance between freedom and a sense of security, and I don't see why dying from side-effects of a medicine could not be one of these, as many states have terms that could lead to your death, like defending your state in a time of war.

A contract it is, and it's state is not as fluid as you suggest. Check the constitution of the country you're at for a very very lucid explanation of the said trade-off. Military service is a very thoroughly contested issue - speaking from a country where army service is mandatory - and still makes sense when you have a thorough understanding of the social contract you're under in greece. Taking this medicine doesn't even come close.

QuoteYou have only made the choice to let more talented individuals convince others for you. You are really still making all the choices, but through intermediaries. If you are unhappy with the outcome of your intermediary's actions, you are hopefully given an opportunity from time to time to choose another person or run for this position yourself.

Yes. I see no problem with this reasoning. It does not contest my point. As a general note on how representative democracy works, thanks, I guess?

QuoteIf people are lazy, irresponsible and uninformed, it will reflect in how the state and elected officials act, and if you have had the opportunity to vote, you are part responsible for every atrocity and good that has been made in the name of the state.

Again yes, agree, so on.

QuoteEven if you are voting for a person who says that the average American is too stupid to assess the risk/benefit, you are acting democratically. If an elected government bases it's governing on such opinions and the voters were aware of what they were voting for, I see it as a democratic and representative government.

A democratic party that is so inherently undemcratic as to support such opinions is severing the social contract we spoke of below. Read your constitution again. In mine, it starts with 'power comes FROM the people, for the service of the people'. A political party within the confines of a democratic system my endorse a lot of opinions. But if they come against the country's constitution, it is the duty of that country's countrymen to rise against this goverment and overthrow it, and esthablish a new democratic goverment. A citizen's alligeance is not towards the ruling party and its policy. It is towards his country and constitution. Them, that, and this, is what a political party that forms goverment is supposed to serve.

Edit: SSH sorry I forgot to reply to you when I posted: My bad, I didn't know what smallpox exactly was when I posted before.

QuoteYes. I see no problem with this reasoning. It does not contest my point. As a general note on how representative democracy works, thanks, I guess?

Sorry about that, didn't really get your point at first.

QuoteA contract it is, and it's state is not as fluid as you suggest. Check the constitution of the country you're at for a very very lucid explanation of the said trade-off. Military service is a very thoroughly contested issue - speaking from a country where army service is mandatory - and still makes sense when you have a thorough understanding of the social contract you're under in greece. Taking this medicine doesn't even come close.

QuoteThe case in point is closer to the goverment making you wearing your own seatbelt MANDATORY than it is ruling against driving under the influence.

If mandatory/obligatory means "binding in law or conscience", the constitution says something like 'public power is to be enforced according to law' and a drunk driver is punished according to law, isn't driving sober mandatory in the same way as using a seatbelt or ruling against a person in either case?
I see drunk driving and not wearing a safety belt different from beating someone in that the first two cases no one is intentionally harmed (and punishment works as a preventative measure), while a person that hits another is actively breaching that person's freedom and constitutional rights. Do you see laws for mandatory seatbelts, vaccines etc. unconstitutional (eg. limiting a person's freedom when it is done for a preemptive/preventative reason)?

QuoteA democratic party that is so inherently undemcratic as to support such opinions is severing the social contract we spoke of below. Read your constitution again. In mine, it starts with 'power comes FROM the people, for the service of the people'. A political party within the confines of a democratic system my endorse a lot of opinions. But if they come against the country's constitution, it is the duty of that country's countrymen to rise against this goverment and overthrow it, and esthablish a new democratic goverment. A citizen's alligeance is not towards the ruling party and its policy. It is towards his country and constitution. Them, that, and this, is what a political party that forms goverment is supposed to serve.

Yes, you are right.

QuoteDo you see laws for mandatory seatbelts, vaccines etc. unconstitutional (eg. limiting a person's freedom when it is done for a preemptive/preventative reason)?

If the only person getting hurt in a situation is the person making the choice (though someone raised an issue with people in the back seat crushing people in the front seat in a case of an accident sans seatbelts, and I'm sure it has happened, this sort of thing is a freak exception that can be applied to a host of things for which there is no mandatory precaution yet and nobody complains) like, let's go for the sake of clarity here with the lone motorbike driver or lone car driver and mandatory wearing of a helmet/seatbelt, then yes, the state telling you what to do with your own wellbeing at fear of fining and prosecution, is in my opinion a controversal point.

People should have the right to hurt themselves and to take their personal risks and chances. The state should educate more than it should regulate, and where it regulates, the citizenry should be VERY attentive to what power it passes to it for such means. Freedom is more important than well-being.

Quote from: Helm on Tue 06/02/2007 07:30:18
People should have the right to hurt themselves and to take their personal risks and chances. The state should educate more than it should regulate, and where it regulates, the citizenry should be VERY attentive to what power it passes to it for such means. Freedom is more important than well-being.

This is all nice for mature or thinking persons. But do you believe that 100% (or 99%) of the citizens in any country are mature enough to think for themselves? I would argue that a country with no laws, or at least with no "guides", mandatory or not, to help citizens, would probably crumble.

I mean it's all ok, when discussing over the forum and all that, but if you had not had the vacinations you had when you were 2-3 years old, then you could be dead by now. Or if not maybe crippled, or maybe unable to bear children (just a few examples...).

Point is: IF one wants to kill himself then I really don't mind. Either way +1 vacination, won't change that. But there are millions (me included of course) that are careless at some points in our lifes. May this be crossing the street where there is no traffic lights (what about traffic lights btw? Wouldn't the world be a better place without them telling us how to drive?), or taking a vacination, or being careless when I have sex with a complete stranger. Isn't it all pretty much the same?

BTW, education is a two way system. It's NOT only the state that educates, but also the citizens that get educated. And if one of the two is not doig a right job then... :-/

QuoteFreedom is more important than well-being.

This is quite hard for me, for I feel that I cannot take on the responsibility involved with complete freedom, and gladly exchange some of my freedom for well-being. Then again, this is how I have lived my entire life, and I guess I might even adapt to such circumstances, learn to be more cautious.

But when I look at America (which I still consider more free than my country), it seems like people are much more jumpy, media generates irrational fears like the athf bomb scare, and money exchanges hands to promise security.
The people still give up their freedom for well-being but do it individually, according to how much they can pay,
rich people live rather in nice suburbs, etc.

I guess I am only predisposed with opinions based on the big-brothering my state has provided my entire life, and
therefore usually only see the faults in systems different than mine. So thanks, this has been a slightly eye-opening thing for me, but I'll still have to evaluate if I value my freedom more than well-being (and how much of it I am prepared to give up). So, although you seem consistent in your reasoning, I don't know yet if I agree entirely. I'lll have to examine my own state's doings more carefully first.

Helm, while you may be correct in theory, in practice NOT making these immunisations mandatory would generally make two groups suffer most in the long term: the children of least educated (hence the poorest) and the children of the most religiously conservative. Most others will assume that the government recommendation is best. I'm not sure that this is the best possible outcome.

I'm not sure in which direction I should be arguing. Should I go to the theories of what I think is right or wrong, or point out the actualities of the current situation.


Driving: In theory it would be great if we were free to not buckle up and do whatever we wanted, like talk on cell phones. In actuality, this is the case. The right to travel is a fundamental right that the goverment can not take away from you, or use goverment action against you for it, as long as you're not damaging property. The only time you're really not allowed this right, is (for some reason), if you're driving with commercial purposes (I'm not sure why). However, there are a couple of things that prevent this from actually happening. One of the biggest reasons you have, is with a drivers liscence comes a contract that waives your rights to certain freedoms, and bounds you to the rules of the State. Even though this is a fundamental right, the beliefs of your law enforcers, legislators, and courts have been in error for the a while. Which means, even though you may be excersizing your right to this freedom (assuming you don't have liscence), the way the sytem works, makes it very difficult to get away with this right.

I, honestly, do think giving up some freedoms for some safety, isn't bad. It's only bad, when it's forced upon everyone. Giving up certain freedoms should be left to the individual.  (Under the logic that freedom doesn't cause injury on a person or their belongings).

-MillsJROSS

The typical freedom debate always struck me as rather artificial. There is no absolute freedom; one freedom takes away from another, at least in a macro perspective. Certain nations advocate the freedom of carrying guns. In return, their citizens miss out on the freedom of walking down a street without risking being gunned down. (Please don't turn this into a debate on gun-laws, I was just picking an example.) The freedom of personal integrity versus the liberty of press, etc, etc. Laws will always be compromises.

It's a completely different thing with the strife to attain personal freedom, but that has to be regarded more as a philosophical pursuit and not very applicable in a society. Submitting to various external procedures does not reduce your chance to actualise yourself, unless it's a matter of some sort of intellectual abuse.

Quote from: MillsJROSS on Tue 06/02/2007 16:15:08
I, honestly, do think giving up some freedoms for some safety, isn't bad. It's only bad, when it's forced upon everyone. Giving up certain freedoms should be left to the individual.  (Under the logic that freedom doesn't cause injury on a person or their belongings).

Isn't the freedom to exchange freedom for safety an example of freedom?

It's a freedom not everyone wants to take advantage of, but the people who don't want to exercise their freedom in that particular way aren't free to do so.

This a bit paradoxal: If you trade away freedom, then you don't have the freedom to trade it back again.
There exist real examples though; certain casinos can let you choose to put yourself on their ban-list, to prevent addicts from gambling away their money. Of course, once on that list, they're not free to remove themselves until after a long period of time.

Forget freedom and democracy for a sec and think about what this is actually about.

Say there's a hypothetical virus that's spread by coughing, and that a large portion of the population carries it without ever having a problem. However, let's say 2% of them go on to develop lung cancer. A vaccine is developed. It's made mandatory for the population because cancer is bad, difficult and expensive to treat, etc. etc.

The only reason this vaccine is different is because
1) The virus happens to be spread sexually
2) Some people believe that only "bad" people get STI's, or that they're some kind of punishment for "bad" behaviour.

Frankly, I believe that religious considerations should always take a back seat when it's a matter of public safety. If a particular religious sect doesn't believe in medicine and instead trusts in god to heal them, should their children be exempted from the usual childhood innoculations?

QuoteIsn't the freedom to exchange freedom for safety an example of freedom?

It seems paradoxical, as mentioned, but the answer is no. The decision itself might be based on the freedoms I have, but after the decision is made, I have limited my freedom. Since I am a dynamic being, I might not like the choices I made previously, and may yet still be bound to them, regardless of the fact that I no longer wish to be bound. I could eleborate more, if you don't find my logic to be correct.

Quote
Frankly, I believe that religious considerations should always take a back seat when it's a matter of public safety. If a particular religious sect doesn't believe in medicine and instead trusts in god to heal them, should their children be exempted from the usual childhood innoculations?

While, I personally, agree that religion shouldn't take as big a part in our decision making. I do think, though, that if you're a religious person, you should have the ability to decide whether or not you want your kid to have a vaccine. You shouldn't, however, be able to decide if anyone outside your family should have to, or not have to take a vaccine. It should be a personal decision, and if that decision is based on religion, than so be it. If a parent doesn't want their kid to have a vaccine because they're afraid of their kid becoming sexually active, it's really up to the parent. Regardless of the fact that the cancer might be contracted in other ways. They should be free to decide these things by their own set of personal beliefs, not mine or anyone elses. And I should be able to decide these things by my own beliefs, and not be bound by someone elses.

-MillsJROSS

I never talked about absolute freedom, which it is correctly said that is traded for other benefits when one accepts a social contract. If you want to be totally free, go live in the wild and see how you fare up. There's a reason human beings came together in the first place: security.

My point of view was that sacrificing freedom for security, when it happens, it should happen after very careful consideration and always with failsafes, and never because the goverment is strong-arming something (or even worse, letting is slide under the table while nobody seems to pay attention). Andail is correct that the absolute freedom versus social limitation issue is largely academic (though neither artificial nor irrelevant to actual human affairs as he also implies) but this isn't the case I'm making.