Mich. may force girls to get vaccine

[John Dibble]

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060913/LIFESTYLE03/609130383/1005/LIFESTYLE

Mich. may force girls to get vaccine
Sixth-graders would be required to get shot to prevent cervical cancer.
Gary Heinlein / Detroit News Lansing Bureau

LANSING -- Michigan would become the first state to require girls entering sixth grade to receive a vaccine that can prevent cervical cancer, under legislation introduced Tuesday in the Michigan Senate.

Although all 11 women senators support the bill, and Gov. Jennifer Granholm supports the concept, passage may not be a slam dunk.

Some conservative religious groups oppose the vaccine for young girls, fearing it would lead to promiscuity.

And some parents aren't comfortable with having it forced upon them.

"I'm a 'keep-your-laws-off-my-body' type of person," said Ann Arbor mom Liz Fall, 42.

Fall said she likely will get vaccinations for her four daughters, who range in age from 6 to 11. But since the vaccine is new, she wants time to consult with her doctor.

"They should legislate giving information about it, and then let parents make informed decisions together with their personal physicians," she said.

Chris Eidson, a Madison Heights father of girls ages 10 and 11, doesn't like the legislation. But he will strongly consider the vaccine to protect his children. He and his wife, Melissa, agree on that.

"Do I want politicians deciding for me? Absolutely not," said Eidson, 40, who owns a glass-repair firm. "It's probably a great thing, but let me do the research, let me make the decisions."

Christina Woods, whose two daughters are 7 and 13 years old, approves of the effort to add the anti-cancer vaccine to the regimen of school inoculations.

"To be completely required might cause problems for some people, but I would do it for my daughters," said Woods, 36, who lives in Warren and works as an office manager-executive assistant for the Detroit Area Agency on Aging.

The bill would become effective for the 2007-08 school year. It was introduced by Sen. Beverly Hammerstrom, R-Temperance.

"Recent studies have shown that cervical cancer may be one of the few cancers that is actually preventable," Hammerstrom said.

"This vaccine will serve as our most effective tool in the fight against cervical cancer."

The vaccine, recently federally approved for girls and women between the ages of 9 and 26, would be aimed at sixth-graders because they are on the verge of adolescence.

Hammerstrom estimated the vaccine would be needed for 72,000 girls in the first year the new law is in effect. As with other school-required vaccines, families would obtain it through personal physicians or public health clinics.

Hammerstrom said for about two-thirds of the girls, private health insurers would pick up the tab. Medicaid and Michigan's MIChild program would pick up others' costs.

The vaccine is recommended by the Federal Advisory Commission on Immunization Practices for girls who are 11 and 12, and as appropriate for other age groups.

The American Cancer Society estimates that about 9,700 girls and women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer in the United States this year and that 3,700 will die from it. The vaccine, called Gardasil, protects against strains of the human papillomavirus that cause most cervical cancer cases. HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection.

"The wonderful thing about this (vaccine) is that, in trials, it was 100 percent effective against HPV16 and HPV18, and those two account for 70 percent of the cases of cervical cancer," Hammerstrom said.

As with other required vaccines in Michigan, families could opt out of HPV inoculations for medical, religious or philosophical reasons.

Hammerstrom, who can't run for re-election due to term limits, hopes her bill will be passed by the end of the year. She has been around the country, consulting with lawmakers about the issue, and said many states are considering such requirements.

Ari Adler, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema, said Sikkema hasn't had a chance to talk about it in depth with Hammerstrom. It will go through the usual committee hearing process, he said.

Immunizations already are required against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis; polio; measles, mumps and rubella; Hepatitis B; and chickenpox.

[??????????]

Strongly disagree with this.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm of two minds of this.

Con  The primary reason for required childhood vaccinations is to prevent kids from missing school due to illness and to prevent the transmission of disease due to the compulsory nature of school attendence.  Because of both the timeframe amd the metod of transmission, neither of those factors apply, so can't be used to justify requiring the vaccnation.

Pro Many insurance plans pay for only those vaccinations that are required.  Placing the vaccine on the required list makes the vaccine more widely available, but effectively acts as a tax on insurance companies which will no doubt raise rates to pay for it.  The cost is one reason I have never bothered with the Hep B vaccine (the other is that I don't engage in the behavor that would put me at risk of acquiring it).  As for the chickenpox, I acquired my immunity the old-fashioned way when I was in the third grade.  The best part about the chickenpox was that I gave it to my older brother who was in high school.  He'd managed to avoid it until then.

[MasterJedi]

Bad idea to force this. For other diseases yes but not this.

[David S]

If the vaccine works and is safe and effective that's wonderful, but it should not be administered at the point of a gun. People should be free to decide for themselves.

[Citizen James]

If the vaccine works and is safe and effective that's wonderful, but it should not be administered at the point of a gun. People should be free to decide for themselves.

Agreed.  To the best of my knowledge cervical cancer is not an easily communicatable disease, and is thus not a generalized health threat.

I would be fine with the state suggesting such a move, or even recomending it, but requiring it goes a bit too far IMO.

[Nym90]

This is a tough call. On the one hand, I do believe in a right to control one's own body, but then we are talking about children here and not adults, and I'm not sure if it's fair to them to be possibly allowed to eventually get cancer due to the negligence of their parents.

The fact that it's not contagious is a big factor giving me pause; I'd definitely support mandatory vaccination for contagious diseases.

Perhaps a compromise could be reached in which parents get some sort of a tax credit for having done this or some such. Create a financial incentive to help persuade people to do it but still offer them the option to opt out if they are adamant about it.

[opebo]

Bad idea to force this. For other diseases yes but not this.

Why the double standard, prude?

[adam]

So in other words, morality is getting in the way of common sense yet again. Go figure.

[bullmoose88]

If the vaccine works and is safe and effective that's wonderful, but it should not be administered at the point of a gun. People should be free to decide for themselves.

Agreed.  To the best of my knowledge cervical cancer is not an easily communicatable disease, and is thus not a generalized health threat.

I would be fine with the state suggesting such a move, or even recomending it, but requiring it goes a bit too far IMO.

I agree with James...there needs to be a balance between the state protecting the health of its citizens and the right to refuse the vaccine

When the disease isn't communicatable, and the person refusing it (or Guardians refusing on the kid's behalf) is the only one who incurs the risk of harm (from not taking it)...then it should be optional...not mandatory

[MasterJedi]

Bad idea to force this. For other diseases yes but not this.

Why the double standard, prude?

Cancer isn't contagious, other things can be dumbass. -_-

[opebo]

Bad idea to force this. For other diseases yes but not this.

Why the double standard, prude?

Cancer isn't contagious, other things can be dumbass. -_-

I believe human papiloma virus is contagious.

[David S]

Bad idea to force this. For other diseases yes but not this.

Why the double standard, prude?

Cancer isn't contagious, other things can be dumbass. -_-

I believe human papiloma virus is contagious.

It can be transmitted by sexual contact. But thats very different than a disease which can be transmitted through the air or casual contact.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I did a poll on this in the Gen. U.S. Discussion--I'll try to pull it up

EDIT: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=41800.0

Most people liked the vaccine-80%

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I support this.

[opebo]

Bad idea to force this. For other diseases yes but not this.

Why the double standard, prude?

Cancer isn't contagious, other things can be dumbass. -_-

I believe human papiloma virus is contagious.

It can be transmitted by sexual contact. But thats very different than a disease which can be transmitted through the air or casual contact.

How on earth is this different?

Unless you are a prude who disapproves of sexual contact. 

[Alcon]

How on earth is this different?

Unless you are a prude who disapproves of sexual contact. 

In a healthy person who uses condoms or abstains from sexual activity, the risk from getting the vaccine is greater than not getting it.  This is not true of any group when it comes to current vaccines.

[John Dibble]

I did a poll on this in the Gen. U.S. Discussion--I'll try to pull it up

EDIT: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=41800.0

Most people liked the vaccine-80%

Recommending it and making it mandatory aren't the same thing, so support levels are going to be different. Personally I think recommending it is a good idea, but I wouldn't force it on anyone when it is not necessary to do so.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How on earth is this different?

Unless you are a prude who disapproves of sexual contact. 

In a healthy person who uses condoms or abstains from sexual activity, the risk from getting the vaccine is greater than not getting it.  This is not true of any group when it comes to current vaccines.

There's also the fact that sexual conduct is not normally an approved school activity, despite the occasional media-frenzy about teacher-child relationships.

[12th Doctor]

I support this.  At the least, any girl who isn't gonna have sex isn't gonna have sex, and probably won't need it.  At the most, it will save lives.  The promiscuity argument is just plain idiotic.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm posting a poll in Gen. U.S. Discussion on this.  I'll also bump the previous poll regarding the FDA go-ahead for the vaccine.

[opebo]

How on earth is this different?

Unless you are a prude who disapproves of sexual contact. 

In a healthy person who uses condoms or abstains from sexual activity, the risk from getting the vaccine is greater than not getting it.  This is not true of any group when it comes to current vaccines.

There's also the fact that sexual conduct is not normally an approved school activity, despite the occasional media-frenzy about teacher-child relationships.

What on earth does this have to do with 'school activities'?  The vaccination is a public health measure which protects these girls in their after-school activities, and on into their (hopefully) promiscuous college years.

[Alcon]

What on earth does this have to do with 'school activities'?  The vaccination is a public health measure which protects these girls in their after-school activities, and on into their (hopefully) promiscuous college years.

Next time, read so I don't have to re-post the same thing.

If someone wears a condom every time or doesn't have sex, the risk of getting the injection (any side effects) is more dangerous than not having it.  Basically, for some people, the government would be forcing them to put themselves at more risk.

[opebo]

What on earth does this have to do with 'school activities'?  The vaccination is a public health measure which protects these girls in their after-school activities, and on into their (hopefully) promiscuous college years.

Next time, read so I don't have to re-post the same thing.

If someone wears a condom every time or doesn't have sex, the risk of getting the injection (any side effects) is more dangerous than not having it.  Basically, for some people, the government would be forcing them to put themselves at more risk.

What kind of person doesn't have sex or wears a condom every time?  If such a person exists, they have a lot bigger problems than HPV.

[Richard]

More money for Big Pharma.