[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Should the state be allowed to force little girls to get STD vacines?
Link
Stu
[/ QUOTE ]
Why does it matter if the disease is sexually transmitted?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because if it is sexually transmitted, one can choose not to be exposed to it (or choose not to spread it); unlike, for example, a disease that may be caught by someone coughing in one's face.
[/ QUOTE ]
I guess I still don't get it. Lets say we could give everyone a vaccine against HIV, that was 100% effective and had no side effects, but you was only effective it if you gave it to infants. We shouldn't use it?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I'm not aware of any vaccine that is both 100% effective and 100% risk-free (many, or maybe all, vaccines have risks of adverse effects). If someone (not an infant, obviously) has decided that if they ever engage in sex it will be only with a committed, special partner, then I see near zero value for that person to have a vaccine that prevents STD's. Yet there would be a risk of a bad reaction to the vaccine. For such persons the vaccine would be a bad bet. Now add the state using its force to make people take the vaccine, and I think you will see why I answered no to the original question in this thread.
[/ QUOTE ]
I do see your point. I just think HPV is a virus that is a lot different from most STD's. Anyone that has had 2-3 sexual partners, or who's partners have had 2-3 sexual partners is very likely to have HPV (I think 75% of the women in the U.S. have it). It is usually asyptomatic, or mild symptoms, and the main adverse affects are cervical cancer of a certain % that are unlucky enough to have certain type of HPV virus. In addition it is not prevented by condom usage. So I agree with what has been said previously that obviously this should come down to cost vs benefit, but I think that the argument that this is a behavior related disease, while somewhat true, this is a widespread virus that most women get through non-risky or promiscuous sexual behavior.