Should HPV vaccination of girls be compulsory?

[chera]

Mandatory vaccination of young girls against HPV (human papilloma virus) is causing a major controversy in the US.

There are many types of HPV.  Some of them are sexually transmitted, and the sexually transmitted types cause about 70% of all cervical cancers.  Worldwide, cervical cancer is the second-most common cancer of women (after breast cancer).  About 40% of women with cervical cancer will die from it, despite widespread early detection (pap smears).  HPVs are extremely common. Half of all sexually active women between 18 and 22 in the US are infected.  Sexually transmitted HPV is just as virulent, and most women who get it will get it when they are 15-25.  But older women are also at risk.

Merck has recently announced a vaccine, Gardasil, for the types of HPV that cause cervical cancer.  In 2007, GSK will seek approval for its own HPV vaccine, Cervarix.  The vaccine is relatively expensive. It requires three doses within about six months, each dose costing about 120 dollars.  It is covered by some major insurers.  The Indian government is investigating whether it can more cheaply produce the vaccine in India.

There are efforts in several US states to make HPV vaccination compulsory for young girls.  Virginia will provide for immunizations for all 11-year-olds, with the state paying for uninsured recipients.  However, these efforts are provoking a nation-wide controversy.  Texas, for example, allows parents to opt out of the requirement for reasons of conscience.  

Arguments for compulsory vaccination
 - Compulsory vaccination would ensure that the greatest number of all young girls (especially uninsured low-income girls) will be protected
 - Even stringent condom use can not prevent all HPV-caused cervical cancers.  Vaccination helps protect those that "fall through the gaps"

Arguments against compulsory vaccination
 - Parents should have the right to decide what medicines their children will take
 - The risk of HPV-caused cervical cancer can be reduced by means other than the vaccination, including abstinence and safer-sex
 - A vaccine against a STD like HPV will promoted sexual promiscuity


What do you think?


In my opinion, vaccination should be compulsory.  I wish there was a vaccine for men - I'd take it in an instant.  It's for the greater good.  Sex education, good parenting, and condom use might help reduce the risk of girls getting HPV, but it can not reduce the risk nearly as well as the vaccine.  The nature of the STD is such that not only the girl getting the virus is harmed, but guys who have sex with that girl (and all girls who have sex with those guys) will also be at risk.  In this case, social good trumps individual choice, IMO.

[JFC]

In my opinion, vaccination should be compulsory.  I wish there was a vaccine for men - I'd take it in an instant.  

Ditto, and ditto.

[monkeyman]

I don't think the vaccination should be compulsory in the U.S. Americans have had a long standing resistance to compulsory vaccination schemes, no matter what the vaccine was for. I think a lot of people would deny their daughters the vaccine simply because it was compulsory. In other countries like mine it wouldn't be a problem.

[Masabi]

I'm a GIRL, and I think that vaccination should NOT be compulsory

because we don't know the effects of it yet.  it could cause some real problems down the line.  once it's been tested for a long enough time i might change my mind.  what if it eventually causes heart complications and death?  oops, our population of women is now dead besides the ones who skipped despite the law!

"Even stringent condom use can not prevent all HPV-caused cervical cancers. Vaccination helps protect those that "fall through the gaps""
HPV isn't going to disappear.  it doesn't get rid of those who already have it, and it doesn't protect against all cases of HPV.  so this is a little silly to say, because it's still going to be around

[ctz]

I guess that in religious (and other ways conservative thinking) America parents think that their daughters won't need the vaccine, because they're not having sex... Which in many cases isn't true.

So compulsory vaccination would help. But I still vote no. I'd like it more if it'd be free for people wanting to take the vaccine.

[Guchi_Jnr]

No.
Make the vaccination and the pros and cons more well-known, and then let sexually active girls choose whether or not they wish to have it. But to force an 11year old girl to have a shot, because the government believes she might catch a STD is pretty insulting.

I also don't believe anything like this should be compulsory in a country, where it's still not compulsory to vote.