The moral justification for a compulsory HPV Vaccination Program Thesis
In his article, Joseph E. Balog presents logical reason and plenty of statistics to explain the benefits of mandatory vaccination against HPV for young women. Utilizing resources like the CDC, public health records and other both oppositional views, as well as concurring views, he explains that while moral consciousness and parental rights are to be noted when considering mandatory vaccinations, it does not serve as a replacement for the lack of regard for safety and prevention in health services.
Philosophical principles
Benefits and lack of harm:
“…it can help reduce the incidence of this communicable disease and maintain health.” [AND] can reduce “…unnecessary suffering.” Here, Balog points out that while there are positive results that stem from parents who discuss sexual activity and risks with their children, in combination with household taught moral, there are still plenty of households where said conversations either do not take place or have less than adequate conversation and even insubstantial information presented to help aide prevention.
Based on this widespread variable, mandated vaccinations would benefit in the gap that presents itself. While the percentages alone may not be impressive, he mentions the actual numbers, 3.2 million adolescent girls have STI’s and 18.3% of those STI’s are in fact HPV. Therefore, the ultimate benefit of mandating this vaccine would be better prevention in the long haul.
Autonomy:
“…who is at greater risk and who stands to gain a greater benefit.”? In this instance, we hand over self-right to the parents because of children being ‘minors’ and therefore, having minimal say in their own life. While it is the parent’s right to educate their children as they see fit, it is not their right to deprive them of health care means that can prove to be beneficial to their health. By allowing vaccination to be optional or non required, parents who choose not to vaccinate their children deprive their children of healthcare means to aid in prevention of disease.
Justice:
“…withholding the vaccine on the grounds of age, potential sexual behavior, or competing values is unfair.” [AND] “Causes of death or disease….should never enter into decisions about access to healthcare, regardless of whether human behavior is a factor.” With holding children from getting this vaccination on the premise of moral decision would prove to be a poor and ineffective method when faced with the alternatives inclusive of personally educating and personal choice of vaccination prevention.
The greater risk factors for HPV come in mid-class and poverty levels as well as in non-white (African and Hispanic) ethnicities. By refuting the mandatory vaccination, we are imposing a greater risk on the subset communities and people, and therefore, allowing it to be potentially widespread.
Facts
Fact 1: Mandatory vaccination programs will help reduce the wide-spread risk of cervical cancer and HPV.
Fact 2: In African American women, cervical cancer is 50% higher than in White women.
Fact 3: In Hispanic women, cervical cancer is 66% higher than in White women.
Opinions
Opinion 1: Eliminating disease in people is secondary to maintaining the ideals and moral preference of the people.
Opinion 2: Opposing or refusing mandatory vaccinations is an ‘act of malevolence’.
Scientific concerns
Concern 1: Rates of cervical cancer are relatively low, and therefore mandating vaccinations would be ineffective in cost. Balog feels that even though the risk is low in percentage, the actual amount of active cases shows that it is enough to be concerned about and therefore should have something done about it.
Concern 2: Screening and treatment have been effective in reducing cervical cancer. Balog previously mentions that while screening has proven to be effective, not all members of society are privileged enough to have the resources readily available to them and thus, there is still a wide number of people who will continue to suffer because of the lack of resource.
Cause/effect relationships
One cause and effect relationship that was implied by Balog was that parent’s oppositional role in the decision of their children’s healthcare will prevent the general public from receiving the most benefit from the use of the vaccine. What he might fail to see is that even though parents have the influence in the youth years, as adults, people can still choose to get vaccinated, which becomes beneficial to those who have observed sexual restraint. Also, by implying this, he may upset his reader because they feel targeted in that there is an assumption that the child will automatically choose to become sexually active before marriage or adulthood.
A second cause and effect relationship that Balog mentioned was the difference in ethnic background. He states that the percentage of African Americans and Hispanic women are 50% and 66% (respectively) higher than White women, and that the women of ethnicity tend to be in the group that will be less likely to receive adequate healthcare, resulting in a continued spread of the disease. While he is cautious in presenting this information, a consequence of presenting it is the possibly of again causing offense to the reader. A reader who is of the ethnic classification who does see the same statistics might grow offended and in turn, reject his proposal based on an emotional bias.
Assessing Mandatory HPV Vaccination Thesis
The authors of this article are presenting an opposition to the mandating proposal of vaccination against the HPV virus and that the request to do so is being done before it is needed. They explain that the HPV virus is not a detrimental health risk to society and therefore, the imposition of a vaccination should not be commanded. However, rather than simply being opposed to the vaccination as whole, they are attempting to show that allowing the vaccination to be optional with public education about it, may serve a greater justice over simply mandating it.
Prongs of Evidence provided
Prong 1: Jacobson vs Massachusetts Supreme court case
They use this to depict how Jacobson was against vaccinations and was still punished by the courts for refusing to comply with the vaccination demand and thus show readers that if it is passed as mandatory, their rights may be infringed on.
Prong 2: Smallpox vaccinations
The scare that produced the required smallpox vaccinations was widespread, yet today, many parents choose for their children to be opted out of the shot.
Prong 3: Sexual activity amongst youth and actual direct impact in schools.
HPV is not directly related to interaction among school mates because it is passed through sexual transmission, and therefore, is only a threat to those who engage in such behaviors.
Facts
Fact 1: While the trials of the vaccine proved to be efficient, there is evidence to show long term success.
Fact 2: HPV is not immediately life threatening and is unlikely to show up for years after it’s introduction.
Fact 3: 1% of males between 15-49 have genital warts; age 24-29 is the peak area for the infection.
Opinions
Opinion 1: Implication of the mandated vaccination will cause a public upheaval against the government.
Opinion 2: The government’s attempt to prevent HPV and cervical cancer is irrational.
What are they really saying?
From reading this, I periodically found myself confused at the author’s attempts in swaying readers ‘against’ vaccination. They consistently point out benefits of the actual vaccination itself. Rather than knocking the concept of the vaccination, they seem to actually be pushing for the vaccination to be an option, but just not making it mandatory at present time.
They touch base on the concept of parents refusing the vaccination of their children based on both religious belief as well as personal preference. Within this presentation, they also seem to present the idea that the vaccination is a great idea, but that leaving it optional is best, or at least allowing for an opt out.
Cause / effect relationships
The liberal opt out policy is suggested because they believe that this would allow for a less ‘backlash’ from the public. The cause and effect here is that with the ability to turn down the vaccination, the results would be a lessened angered reaction. The consequence to this idea, they further, is that it may promote a new cause for problem in the already existing mandatory vaccinations, otherwise causing people a desire to have the opt out options in these as well.
Another cause and effect relationship posed is on the vaccination of girls as opposed to boys. They present that while girls are being suggested to have the vaccinations mandated, it would be more effective if both girls and boys were vaccinated because if boys are also vaccinated, the possibility eliminating the disease in the upper 90 percentages is very possible. A possible consequence for stating this could be adverse in their attempts to make vaccinations non-mandatory. This would be because people might see that it would be more beneficial to subject boys and girls to the vaccine rather than just girls, in turn, possibly motivating a push of the audience to start pursuing a non-sex differentiated mandate.
One more cause and effect they provide is the lack of evidential support on the long term effects of the vaccination. If the vaccination is mandated, while the immediate cause is beneficial to non sexually active girls, it doesn’t necessarily prove to be beneficial upon sexual activity. A possible result of this example is that they may in fact sway their readers to side with not having the vaccination at all, as opposed to allowing it to be optional.
My interpretation
Impression
I was more compelled by the driven amounts of evidence as provided by the oppositional article because they presented a more well-rounded whole of information which provided support both for their argument as well as against it.
Both articles show incredible bias towards their own opinion, however, in “Assessing mandatory HPV Vaccination” there seemed to be slightly less. They seemed to try to keep to both sides of the fence while Balog expressed multiple times that the decision to oppose the vaccination was ‘immoral’ or ‘unfair’ or ‘wrong’. Words like that suggest extreme bias. However, he did appeal to ethos using these arguments.
I think they had their biases simply because each believes their own ideals. Balog wishes to see society as a whole protected at whatever cost, while the opposing writers feel that there is a lesser way to deal with a non-threatening situation.
My Side
After reading both articles, I can appreciate both sides, however, I still would side with Balog because I feel that he is thinking towards the benefit of people as a whole, while the other authors are focused on what is currently going to keep people complacent. Safety of people is much more important than it is to make sure that someone’s feelings are not hurt. Worrying about impositions of parental rights should perhaps be focused on much more needed areas, rather than in an area that may prove to benefit the child in years to come.
Boys mandated?
I think that having boys being mandated as well is a fantastic idea. Both boys and girls are carries or the alleles, so therefore, why not do all we can to eliminate the problem into the above 90 percentage. I have a son and I would be extremely upset if he passed something like this onto a girl because no one knew he had it in addition to the fact that a vaccine is readily available. Mandating for both is the best way to begin elimination, especially if people are required to do it.
Influenza
I think mandating a flu shot would be a great thing to do as well. We are supposed to look out for the greater good of one another, as self declared being the US. So why not start somewhere? If everyone is mandated to get an influenza shot, we begin to eliminate the bug. If it’s mandated for everyone, it can be imposed by way of mandating for work, school, and even the welfare. Forcing people to provide records of having their shots done would be costly at first, but in the long haul, the virus could be eliminated and death that is unneeded in this regard would be eliminated.
REFLECTION
Overall, this assignment was great in terms of getting me to view and appreciate oppositional sides. I did find that I was able to associate some of the things I have learned throughout the course, such as medicating an infection that could turn into a superbug due to a lack of follow through, or alleles of different pathogens that are carried in each individual. So in this regard, this actually did prove to be somewhat effective in application.
As far as challenging my assumptions, I suppose it did slightly. I am definitely still for mandatory vaccination, however, I do now appreciate the reasons as to why people wouldn’t. I didn’t think about uprising of the public, or about things in terms of rights. I figured that people would be for doing something that will protect their children, rather than being opposed to it. But again, I can understand a little more as to why in that one, sometimes, people just need something to defy against, and two, legitimate factors also exist such as religion or just personal preference.
As a whole however, I do not feel that this was the most appropriate major project to apply to a science class. This had much more to do with analysis which I do now understand is very important to science, but it still has too much to do with personal opinion and not enough to do with what we have actually been learning. I would have much preferred a major project that really pushed us into applying everything that we have learned thus far. That way, rather than referring to a few documents provided for the assignment as well as some text and an occasional epiphany of things that relate to biology, we could have actually been using our books and practicing real application of core concepts.
E-portfolio Link
http://chandreyee.yolasite.com/taking-sides-biology-1090.php
