|
about me
oh so useful
|
Thursday, July 19
Not Submitted:Round One: HPV vs. Liberty What is the role of government? This question lies dormant underneath the original question asked, “Should states enact laws that would require girls to be vaccinated against Human Papillomavirus (HPV)?” Without considering the first question, the answer to the second sounds easy – of course the government should require it; after all, the vaccination could protect hundreds of lives nation-wide against cervical cancer! But the question extends further than simply whether or not the vaccine may potentially protect lives. The government should provide its citizens protection from outside forces, like murderers or careless drivers, not protection from themselves. [ ] The strain of HPV that can lead to cervical cancer cannot spread as a result of ordinary physical contact but through sexual encounters, most commonly vaginal, anal, and oral intercourse. Obviously, this means that the child (in most states that have enacted legislation, the minimum age is 11 or 12), except in the case of rape, would deliberately make a choice to contract HPV through deliberately making a choice to have sex. However, many women - much less young girls - do not know about several STDs beyond the few commonly talked about on TV or in movies, like AIDS or herpes. In 2004, a study by the American Social Health Association (ASHA) suggested that a leading reason for the spread of STDs, especially those lesser-known like HPV, resulted from the American community’s general lack of awareness. “…noted James R. Allen, M.D., M.P.H, president and chief executive officer of ASHA... ‘people's lack of awareness about the various STDs only underscores the need for continued education to prevent the spread of these serious diseases.’" (American Social Health Association, Inc.) If the government wants to get involved, perhaps it should start with better public awareness about more STDs than just AIDS and herpes. If the youth of today understood more about the risks involved, perhaps the amount of unprotected sex of minors would decrease. This strategy certainly could prove useful by making the public more aware of the dangers of STDs and letting them make their own decisions rather than forcing them to take an inoculation that may not be required for each girl at the age of twelve. The answer cannot lie in more governmental funding to simply patch up today’s cracks. The issue of government's role in the peoples' lives notwithstanding, the choice to enact a law may not even seem as well-founded now as it might have in the past. According to the Redundancy cannot serve as a solution to the country’s problems. The government cannot attempt to amend a wrong by adding layers of bureaucracy and pages of laws into an already infinitely-thick book. And yet, this is exactly what they do. No one can fight for this issue and stay within the realm of common sense - to fight for this issue relies upon pure feeling, unadulterated by reason. We must strive for a half-way point between pure logic and pure feeling; but the want to enact this law falls no where close to this point. While the government should make the inoculation available to those who do not ordinarily have the means obtain it, such as those of low income or those without insurance, it does not have the right to mandate that junior high school girls must take a needle straight into the cervix because they may have sex which may lead to the contraction of HPV which may cause cervical cancer. Ember [
09:54 ] |