View on the News

Should the HPV vaccine be mandatory?

Christopher Curran
Posted 8/19/15

As a father of grown adult children, I do remember with clarity bringing my children to the pediatrician to receive their childhood vaccines. To say my kids were resistant to getting their shots …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
View on the News

Should the HPV vaccine be mandatory?

Posted

As a father of grown adult children, I do remember with clarity bringing my children to the pediatrician to receive their childhood vaccines. To say my kids were resistant to getting their shots would be an understatement.

Upon hearing their complaints, which were usually yelled defiantly at a high decibel level, I would explain to them individually that it was unfair for them not be vaccinated. I would relate to them what the world was like before vaccines were developed that could thwart measles, mumps, polio and rubella. The problem was not just insulating them from these threatening diseases, but informing my kids that without these immunizations, they were endangering their schoolmates, playmates, fellow sports team members and, for that matter, everyone they came in contact with. Simply, these potential ailments were easily communicable, and to put not only themselves but others in jeopardy was greatly unfair to the people around them in their young lives.

However, the communicability of the human papillomavirus is much different. HPV can only be transferred by intimate sexual contact.

If one does not involve oneself is this type of activity, then HPV is not a concern. A cough, a sneeze, a burp, or passive physical contact will not expose someone else to the HPV virus.

So why then is the state of Rhode Island requiring 11- or 12-year-olds to receive a series of three shots to immunize them against the HPV group of viruses? Since the US Food and Drug Administration approved the original version of this preventative inoculation (Gardasil) in 2006, a handful of states have made this immunization mandatory or a student could be prohibited from attending school for not receiving the vaccination. These few states have overstepped their governmental authority. At least 25 states have legislation pending regarding the HPV vaccine requirement being added to the MMR vaccine requirement for admittance to school.

There is no question that the diseases that can be caused by an active HPV virus are significant. Also, it has been scientifically established that the HPV vaccine is quite effective. However, when it comes to sixth- and seventh-graders, the state is being wildly presumptuous as to whether a teenager will be sexually active and therefore at risk.

Should the state of Rhode Island require this particular vaccination except for a professed religious exemption? Also, can an argument be made that this requirement is in the public interest? Or should the decision to avail themselves of this “protection” be strictly a choice of the parents of minors who would otherwise be subjected to receiving the vaccination?

At one time or another during a child’s adolescence, usually a father and son or a mother and daughter will have “The Talk.” Being open and honest about sexuality is always wise. Thus, the talk must include conveying an understanding of the wide world of sexually transmitted diseases, or STDs. More widespread and threatening than what people from my generation faced, a teenager who wishes to take the important step into a sexual life must have all information available and access to all the precautionary protection possible.

However, when the talk takes place should be the decision of contemplative parents and not the government. Children who are now forced to receive the HPV vaccination will invariably be told why they are having it. With that experience, inevitably more knowledge about sexuality will be corresponded to the child. A concerned parent may not want these insights to be disclosed to an 11- or 12-year-old outside the parent-child relationship. Perhaps 16 or 17 might be a more appropriate age for such a discussion. The state by this arbitrary assigning of sixth or seventh grade as the age level for inoculation are robbing some years of innocence from these children.

The argument from some medical professionals in regard to this tender age for receiving this vaccine is that it assumes sexual activity will most probably commence at 14 or 15 years and the antibodies will have built up sufficiently by that time.

Yet according to the Centers for Disease Control in a 2009 to 2010 study, only 38 percent of non-minority females between the ages of 15 and 19 have commenced sexual activity. Whereas only 44 percent of non-minority males commenced sexual activity, thus the majority of non-minority children are not sexual active in that age group. On the contrary, the statistic in the minority community concludes unfortunately that over 80 percent in the same age group are sexually active. Thus, one could argue that perhaps the vaccine would be prudent in certain social subsets. Regardless of the statistics, the decision to immunize should reside with the parents.

Generation after generation, people were stricken with measles, mumps, rubella and polio. Some died and some were adversely impaired for the remainder of their lives. Perhaps the most visible of these people in American history was our 32nd president, Franklin D. Roosevelt. The disease polio was communicated to him casually at a Canadian camp in the 1920s. As a result, he never stood without metal braces till his death. When Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine in the 1950s, Eleanor Roosevelt stated that the physical pain and limitations of her husband’s life would have been dramatically changed had he been able to be immunized against this debilitating illness. Administrating the MMR vaccine and the polio vaccine in a mandatory fashion makes perfect sense for it protects a wide populous who could easily fall prey to airborne diseases.

Oppositely, HPV should not be thought of in the same vein.

HPV is actually a group of 150 diverse viruses. Of course, it is unquestionably dangerous to be exposed. According to federal statistics, 27,000 cervical cancer cases per year result from an HPV category virus.

However, the communication can only occur during a sex act. By enforcing this requirement, the state of Rhode Island is presuming a certain character in our children, they are usurping our rights of parenting, and they have overstepped the constitutional needs of protecting the populous. The HPV vaccination simply does not meet the population protection standard and therefore mandatory HPV vaccinations should not be lawful.

Strangely, in an attempt to circumvent the government, many who do not have to abide by medical restrictions in their espoused religious doctrine are claiming a religious exemption anyway. Currently, this may be the only way to avoid this intrusive directive. Believers should not have to exceed their true beliefs in order to avoid this government overreach.

In our politically “blue” far left liberal state, we have experienced many intrusions into our privacy with over-regulation. But when the state trespasses on our righteous ability to raise our children in a manner that we deem appropriate, then the government has become totalitarian in nature. We do not wish to live in the Ocean State’s version of the Soviet Union. The HPV vaccine should not be mandatory!

Comments

1 comment on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • richarddaggett

    I disagree. In an unrealistic and perfect world we want to believe that our children are asexual. And, in an unrealistic and perfect world, we want to believe there are no sexual predators. What we wish for and what the reality is are often different. Mr. Curran writes, "when the state trespasses on our righteous ability to raise our children in a manner that we deem appropriate, then the government has become totalitarian in nature." Just what is "righteous ability"? If you believe that your "righteous ability" includes corporal punishment, imprisoning them, or withholding medical care, then the state will "intrude" into your world and challenge your "righteous ability".

    Thursday, August 20, 2015 Report this