Right to Choose: HPV....?

The Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine for young women stirred quite a bit of controversy over the few years, more controversy that I can remember over a vaccine in my lifetime to date. HPV is arguably the most common sexually transmitted disease in the United States, and studies link the virus strongly with cervical cancer, clearly a colossal concern to modern women.

Controversy over vaccinations began when the idea first came to light, presumably with influence of Louis Pasteur, who used his rabies vaccination treatment on a young boy bitten by a rabid dog in France in 1885. While better known for his process of Pasteurization for dairy products, obviously, his work in immunology lives on in infamy. This successful treatment paved the foundations for the research and manufacture of many other vaccines in the centuries to come. A highly publicized and argued side-effect of vaccines, was (is) that for every ‘x’ amount of people who are given a certain vaccine, ‘y’ number of people will die or suffer permanent physiological damage from the vaccine. There are hazards to vaccines, that are widely recognized and include more than just the commonly thought-of issue mentioned above.

Despite this, the governments of many states, as well as the federal government, published a vaccination schedule for children to the point that proof of vaccination is required before entrance into specific grade levels. Some people still balk at the hazards of vaccinations; however it has long been believed that the benefits of vaccinations far outweigh the adverse side-effects. I think it rare to hear about death from a vaccination any more....unless it is the flu vaccination. What about MMR? DTP?? Not heard anything...not in a very long time.

Personally, I think states should pass legislation that requires girls to be vaccinated against HPV. One stipulation I have with my support for the vaccine, is that the law would allow room for personal objection, on the basis of the right of conscious choice or religious reasons. For example, Texas became the first state to require by law that girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated against HPV. This brought both praise and controversy to the governor, Rick Perry, who allowed room for parents to opt out of the program for various reasons, including religious ones. His executive order also brought about extra funding and sources for low income families or families lacking health insurance to be able to receive the vaccine.

This vaccination is different from other vaccinations in a political capacity, because it is specific for girls, and not a gender-neutral vaccine like the DTP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) vaccine required for all school-age children. As such, it became a controversial subject to require the vaccine, with some people claiming it takes the right to choose away from the parent and possibly the child. Is it wrong to require a girl to get the vaccine? Is it something that you can make analogous to the HUGE debate about abortion and the right to choose? (No really, one group in the NYTimes article I read brought this up....WOW...is all I have to say...)

Another argument against making the HPV vaccine a required-by-law vaccine is that some feel it would promote the idea that sexual activity at a young age is acceptable, or that receiving the vaccination makes it safe to engage in unprotected sexual activities. My counter to these ideas is that the problem with sexual activity at a young age does not rest with the requirement of a vaccination meant to protect women from the virus, but rather from a lack of education and positive parental/adult involvement in the life of the child. The sexual education currently present in schools attempts to provide a remedy to the lack of parental involvement and education in the home about sex, but could stand some revision in its own right. In my opinion, the possible interpretations of the requirement of this vaccination should not be a reason to prevent the passing of legislation that requires this vaccine, provided that an appropriate opt-out clause is added to allow for those who would strongly object to their daughters receiving this vaccine.

Overall, I think the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the possible side-effects and personal or religious objections that some might have, so enacting legislation to require vaccination of young girls entering sixth grade is quite appropriate. Again, I would hope a provision could be made for families who are strongly against the vaccine, so that it does not become a “right to choose” issue.

Another important aspect of this issue to point out is that not only is this vaccine designed to protect young girls/young women from consented sexual activity, but also unwanted sexual activity such as sexual assault or even the risks involved with such activities as prostitution. I think it is very important that this vaccine become widely available for low-income women to afford, similar to the low-cost gender-neutral vaccinations provided at local public health offices throughout the United States, or be available free-of-cost. Clearly, funding for this is a grand endeavor that the federal system is perhaps not ready to undertake, at least yet. Still, making the vaccine a legal requirement for young girls is a step toward making it easily available and a step toward improving the overall health of women.