How much should our government interfere/intervene in medical treatment? I mean the government influences (or tries to) the medical care available in myriad ways all the time from medicaid, medicare, prescription drug regulations, insurance regulations, laws about what kinds of medical procedures should not be done. I'm not really talking about those things. The Terri Shiavo case got a lot of attention and spurred a lot of debate on government intervention in end-of-life decisions and recently there was a case of a teenager with cancer who did not want chemotherapy (with his parents' support) and the doctors took the case to court to try to make him have chemotherapy. Those cases are a little closer to what I mean.
But what raises this question for me is this:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/condi....ap/index.html
There is legislation that, if passed, would result in requiring that Michigan girls entering the 6th grade will have to be vaccinated against certain strains of human papilloma virus that can cause cancer. There is a provision allowing parents to opt out of the vaccine requirement (as they can opt out of other kinds of required vaccinations for school enrollment). But I'm sure there are going to be objections aplenty even with the opt out provision.
I actually think that this (and most if not all other commonly given vaccinations) are good. I also agree that there is a public health consideration in trying to reduce the spread of certain diseases (like TB or polio). This particular vaccination is more controversial than some other vaccines because it is tied to sexual activity. But should it be a condition for going to school (unless the parent opts out)? I understand that the vaccine needs to be given prior to sexual activity in order to be most effective.
But what raises this question for me is this:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/condi....ap/index.html
There is legislation that, if passed, would result in requiring that Michigan girls entering the 6th grade will have to be vaccinated against certain strains of human papilloma virus that can cause cancer. There is a provision allowing parents to opt out of the vaccine requirement (as they can opt out of other kinds of required vaccinations for school enrollment). But I'm sure there are going to be objections aplenty even with the opt out provision.
I actually think that this (and most if not all other commonly given vaccinations) are good. I also agree that there is a public health consideration in trying to reduce the spread of certain diseases (like TB or polio). This particular vaccination is more controversial than some other vaccines because it is tied to sexual activity. But should it be a condition for going to school (unless the parent opts out)? I understand that the vaccine needs to be given prior to sexual activity in order to be most effective.
Comment