Originally posted by iMac David
I've understood your position to be that since cervical cancer can only be caught by sexually active women, and thus they can prevent themselves from catching it by abstinence, development of the vaccine is a waste of money.
You stated that if it was up to you, you would stop all research into this vaccine. Therefore any subsequent death would be met, by you, with a metaphorical shrug of the shoulder with the words "well, they shouldn't have slept around, should they? What did they expect?". Staggering, really.
Unfortunately for you, non-sexually active women catch it (according to the cancer support website I referred to).
Oh well, never let the facts get in the way, eh?
I understand the need to make my position seem callous and unfeeling. But the simple fact is that...in cancers alone...forget "behavior" for a moment
...there are 10 others that kill (in total) 100 time as many people each year. As a matter of prioritization...I would put as much money (all) towards these "top ten" before any others. If the "cure" for the number one cancer could be obtained even 1 year earlier due to additional funding (taken from a lesser killer) it would make up for 44 years of this one. The number two...15 years. The number three...9 years.
With (more) "behavioral" driven issues, we have an alternative that can be put into play immediately.
As I said earlier...with this particular one the point is (probably) moot since it is already developed...but the overall argument I am making is valid.
I would be going after the greatest number of lives I could save first...pouring everything we could into those. So, were I "in charge", I would have considered the (approximately 15-20) higher mortality cancers ahead of this one.
Not sure what is so hard to see about this. Why this is immoral. Why it is "extreme". Why it is "religious". Etc.
I would be going after the greatest number of lives I could save first.