Should Minnesota mandate cancer vaccine?

This is a very debated subject and I am not sure how I feel about it. My feelings at this point are mixed. I can see pros and cons. Waiting to see how this will play out

No. Parents should be the decision makers here. Period.

The way things work i would not be suprised to see that they find out 20 years from now that the vaccine causes a different kind of cancer. When it comes to our own bodys we should be the ones that make the choice not the goverment.

My wife is ragin mad about this. She refused to get it after she had our daughter. It hasn't been around long enough to make her feel safe. Watch in a few years, what if a bunch of the girls that have gotten sick?

I'd support mandating it. Cancer sucks.

This is one of those things where I don't think men should ahve a damn say in it. We aren't going to be getting this so why should we ahve a say in it?? Frankly, our opinion's about this don't matter.

I thought that the government shouldn't mandate what a woman should do or shouldn't do with her body.

The fear/pharmaceutical/profit connection produces some pretty amazing propaganda, eh?
Cancer is healable by non-pharmaceutical means, and the government agencies which suppress that information know that only too well. The profits are all in misery and surgery and drugs, though - so here we go again. But NOT ME!!!!!!

Last week I commented on an article that said the Governor of Texas had threatened to bypass the legislature in order to pass a law like this there.

HPV is a serious health problem, but it's hardly the most serious.

For a comparison: twelve thousand women are diagnosed with cervical cancer every year; and almost four thousand die from it; thirty seven and a half million are diagnosed with the flu every year; and thirty-six thousand die from it. (Statistics from and linked to the CDC web site)

If passed, this certainly will be a windfall for some pharmaceutical company; and will also further the precedents for mandating vaccinations.

It's all rolling up to an un-funded mandating of health care and health insurance upon the masses. Not content to shove its own hands into our pockets, the government forces us to allow business world hands to dig around and snag shares of our earnings.

Those who don't agree or can't afford these things will no doubt have to go to jail, wage legal battles, apply for religious waivers and rely on public assistances.

As always. it should be up to the individual. That's what Freedom is all about.

First, to Bill's argument: You are saying that quantity of deaths decides seriousness of problem; I would argue that death is death, and if death can be preventable, perhaps it is good. Ms. Grailbear, I suggest you engage in reality rather than the new age fake celtic fantasyland you live in. What are your cures...publicize them...and then let's test them. The other arguments appear vaccuous and miss the point...it is about mandating a vaccine for public health, and does public health override the individuals right to decide. Consider this: The successful worldwide campaign to wipe out smallpox succeeded specifically because of collaboration and cooperation. If one group had decided to avoid vaccination, it would have left, consistently, a pool always vulnerable to infection, thus requiring constant innocculation of the rest. This is the problem created by those who refuse this: they remain a pool of vulnerable carriers, ready to infect everyone else, protected by all those who are vaccinated. I will not comment on the frank ignorance of some of the statements here, sych as a vaccination causing future cancer, or cure by pharmaceutical means, or severity of illness defined by quantity. Does the individuals right to choose override the rest's right not to have disease strike them because of that person's refusal to accept simple safe treatment? I won't argue the promiscuity point; that is so frighteningly stupid and illogical as to not deserve merit. Additionally, it is portrayed to be a moral arument, but it is really a religious viewpoint, and frankly all religous viewpoints don't even deserve to be heard in this complicated case. Next they will wish to bring the god poseidon's view into the fold.

Paul - Yup. more deaths equals a more serious problem. We vaccinated against smallpox because it was transmittable through incidental contact and it had the reputation for decimating towns, cities and entire nations.

And Yup, preventing death is a good thing.

But, in America, impinging on religious freedom is bad; especially when we are talking about a disease that is not highly communicable; that only woman can get; and only if they have sexual relations, with a carrier. Women who practice abstinence or monogamy, for religious reasons or other, are quite effectively shielded from this disease.

Spiritual practices may not mean very much to you, but they are incredibly important to many other people. People who, historically, will willingly die and kill in order to maintain their right to practice them. And, as I said, certain religious practices provide perfect protection against this disease.

I'd be really, really interested to hear a young woman's point of view on this topic. Has anyone talked with a daughter about it?

Most people are getting caught up in the moral discussion here, when it's really the safety issues that are the biggest concern. Even if the HPV vaccine were absolutely safe, it only covers 70% of the virus strains that cause cervical cancer and it is only approved for girls, so only 50% of the carriers are vaccinated. There is not a potential of the eradication of cervical cancer.
Then, there's a HUGE issue with the HPV vaccine's safety. The pre-approval testing was completely inadequate. It followed only a small group of girls for a short amount of time. It often takes decades to develop cervical cancer and HPV. Nobody knows the long term risks of the vaccine. The vaccine contains a large dose of aluminum. The in the trials, the placebo should have been aluminum free, but it contained aluminum, so there was no way to separate out the adverse side effects like arthritis, seizures, loss of speech and fainting, the girls experienced in the trials and now in the clinical use. This is a risky vaccine that Merck desperately wants all states to mandate now!
Merck is funding legislative lobbying so their HPV vaccine Gardasil will be used to vaccinate all girls before their competitor, GlaxoSmithKline's HPV vaccine is approved in a few years. If Merck can accomplish this, they stand to make $5 billion. It's all about covering their losses on Vioxx. So NO, Minnesota should not mandate the HPV vaccine!

I love how there is a huge surge to pass this and vaccinate girls from HPV and potentialy cancer and yet people bitch about banning smoking. Hypocrits.

I don't understand how this is any different than any other vaccine. Everyone has already figured out that abstinence-based sex education doesn't work, so the point about "sending a mixed message" is completely moot. Just because a young woman is vaccinated against some forms of cervical cancer does not mean that she is going to be sexually active, the two are mutually exclusive.

After reading Heather O's comment:

I didn't realize this was something being pushed by Merck. That's enough for me to change my mind. Drug companies shouldn't be allowed to lobby...

thankfully we're 10 years away from having to make this choice for our daughter; i do think it's very possible that inadequate testing/research has gone into this drug, and i don't put it past the pharmaceutical industry (merck hasn't had a breakout drug in years) to place profits ahead of public health. that said, THIS IS A CANCER VACCINE! a dream that's taken years to accomplish.

the entire arguement that it would cause unsafe behavior in teens is dubious - does having the hep b vaccine (administered in infants) make them more open to causual sex? show me that data... and btw, isn't a woman, however chaste she may be, still potentially at risk from her husband (as it is the male who carries the disease?)

Thank you for commenting, Heather O. - you point out the safety factor. When you say, "The pre-approval testing was completely inadequate." can you tell us what type of testing you'd like to see for this? An aluminum-free placebo? You also present an interesting point about the money Merck stands to make...

Nathan S., it really is an interesting dynamic, isn't it?

Thanks for chiming in Woody O.

Mitch R. did you and your daughter talk about the controversy surrounding the vaccine? I'm really, really interested in what she would have to say about all this. Interesting point about the selt belt laws, btw.

Will you be watching the use and/or further testing of this vaccine, brit k.?