Quote:
Originally Posted by
ShawnJ 
That'd be great-- something I'd support in the absence of a mandate.
Your language is confusing here. You make it sound like it will be impossible for women to get this vaccine unless it is mandated that they get it. You appear to be using a class warfare argument to obscure the fact that you are forcing women to take this vaccine.
Quote:
But I think the public health policy ground of eradicating cervical cancer wins-out over any countervailing issues like that vague "right to control your body" rationale. Abortion-rights activists use that language because pregnancy is far more encompassing than a series of shots. Also, we already require immunizations for a variety of things. I see no reason not to extend that trend to another transmittable virus that, in this case, causes cervical cancer. There are more than enough reasons.
I think your authoritarian streak is raising its head again. While cervical cancer is certainly a concern, it is not anything like a public health epidemic. Your co-worker isn't going to cough in your direction and give you the STD that could lead to cancer. This would be true if you were a woman as well. This would be very true if we were talking any of the other vaccines that are required. Are you really unable to comprehend that all the other required vaccines are airborne contagions and the STD that could cause cervical cancer is not?
Now back to the larger post.
Quote:
I don't know what that paragraph means.
And please try to show a little more respect than "your view is hilarious."
But yes, there are remedies available to take care of your concerns about some remote, unknown future risk.
I'm sorry you didn't comprehend. I was simply pointing out your bias here. You want the government to test and declare safety. You want the government to mandate. You then want the company sued if any of the actions of the government lead to women being harmed. I suppose you'll want the government to file suit for the parties injured by the government mandated actions against the company as well.
Why is every party not responsible for their own actions except the company? Why is the person who should have the freedom to consent instead mandated since you believe them unable to assume responsibilities for their own bodies? Why is the government unable to assume responsibility for a product it deemed safe and then mandated? Why would only the company be a party to the suit?
Quote:
Of course.
But what's involved is only a visit or two to the doctor or clinic.
You were comparing mandatory vaccinations to shutting down Burger King.
Huge difference in what's involved.
The scales are similar. You are talking about a vaccine that requires three visits across six months and that costs almost $400 per person. When you include all parties, which is ALL women, Using Texas as an example we would be discussing almost 7 million clinic visits for innoculation at a cost of 2.8 billion.
Those sound like big business numbers to me. Seven million clients and 2.8 billion worth of sales is a large scale, even if you care to dismiss it.
Quote:
it's 100% effective against the strains of HPV that cause 70% of cervical cancer.
Correct, it is not a 100% solution to ending cervical cancer. So please do not use justifications of "ending cervical cancer" as a means of taking away choice. It simply shifts the already slim odds you will get it a bit lower.
Quote:
It's an access issue.
As I've said before, without making the vaccine mandatory, it won't be available to a good swath of the population because insurance won't cover it.
This is what I asked you to address above. I hope you comprehended it. We can mandate insurance coverage and allow government programs to offer it without mandating women take the vaccine.
Quote:
Don't lash out when you're frustrated.
I have not done the same.
it's an admirable position to take-- to give away vaccines for free-- but I don't think that would nearly reach the number of women a mandatory vaccine would.
I'm not lashing out, just pointing out the desperation of your arguments. You resort to claiming hatred of women to deny them choice with the bodies and responsibility for their own health and welfare. That is a desperate position and you have to attack a person to attempt to overcome the weak position. You "not thinking it will reach nearly the number of women" isn't a reasonable rationale to deny them choices regarding their own bodies.
Quote:
Of course not-- each of those factors aren't nearly as simple as vaccination.
We're talking about a few visits to the doctor or clinic here. That's it.
Each one of those actions raise the risk of getting cervical cancer and put a stop to your stated desire to eradicate it. Why would you mandate the vaccine and then allow smoking which is a much larger health concern than cervical cancer?
Also if a woman can't be responsible enough to make this choice regarding her own body, how can you expect her to remember and show up to an appointment six months out for the third dose of this vaccine? I mean if you can't trust them with the decision, how can you trust them to show up for the appointment?
Quote:
I'm going to advocate more research into the remaining HPV strands.
Why does requiring a vaccine suddenly provoke wild fears of banning cars and fast-food restaurants? It's a little crazy.
You have very strange number-sense. It seems 3700 people nationwide is an epidemic to you when that is actually a very small number. The millions that you mandate receive the vaccine, their multiple visits and the billions in costs, well that is just a small matter to you.
Also you fail to see the principle you endorse and people are showing you that principle applied to other areas. In this instance you really do advocate the needs of the very few driving the demands on everyone else. If this vaccine were to go nationwide you would be placing demands upon 22.5 million women to eliminate the possible outcome to 3700. Those are huge numbers to diminish an already very small risk.
Quote:
But the argument that pap-smears are somehow a holy grail is not good.
They can detect most cervical cancer, but you still need cancer treatment!
Just inoculate them.
Pap-smears are the holy grail and not a single recommendation about the need for them or the frequency at which they should occur changes because of this vaccination.
Your reasoning shows how the fight against this must ultimately be about a woman and her desire to control and be responsible for her own body. It is likely that the rate for the remaining rates of cervical cancer will probably raise if this vaccine is mandates. Some women will ignorantly assume they are now inoculated and not seek pap smears until it is too late or until more expensive treatment is required. As always these things are "complicated." One decision in one direction does have outcomes intended and unintended in other areas.
We know your position though. You'll not trust the women and make the pap smears mandatory as well. I mean it is just a simply little matter of tens of millions of of women making billions of dollars worth of visits and tests. It really isn't any sort of big deal.
Quote:
That's the reality for most poorer women.
It *is* a choice between vaccination and no vaccination if it isn't mandatory.
That is nonsense. It is a false dichotomy you have created to deny women the right to control their own bodies.
Quote:
That's just not true.
Only richer women will!
And this is just a continuation of that false dichotomy.
Nick
