I would have greatly enjoyed hearing about Arthur Caplan’s opinions regarding the mandate of the HPV vaccine. Although I did not attend the lecture, I suppose that he touched upon the ethics regarding the possible mandate requiring all females to have the HPV vaccine in an effort to control cervical cancer. But what about the boys?
The article presented in the New York Times publicizes the potential approval of the HPV vaccine for the male population. But wait—isn’t the HPV vaccine only for girls? Immediately, the images of young girls participating in athletic activities while accomplishing their goals and simultaneously chanting together “One less!” flashes through our minds (see the article for further description). Although Merck has created this image in an effort to market the vaccine, in reality HPV is an STI; in other words, HPV infects both males and females.
So instantly, the issue that Arthur Caplan spoke about arises: Should there be a mandate requiring both males and females to have the HPV vaccine? My response would be no; I believe that any such mandate would violate the issue of autonomy. Some may argue that the vaccine could potentially eradicate cervical cancer and other diseases related to HPV such as genital warts (if it is developed to that point), so wouldn’t you want to eradicate HPV in the same way society is working to eradicate diseases such as polio and tuberculosis?
Yes, I agree that tuberculosis and polio are horrible diseases. Yes, I agree that cervical cancer is a horrible disease. But no I don’t think society has any right to force any individual to take the HPV vaccine. Although these diseases are transmitted through person-to-person contact, the characteristic of HPV that sets it apart is choice. In most cases, you choose to have sexual intercourse, whereas you have no control over whether or not a stranger with a drug-resistant strain of tuberculosis chooses to board a plane to Europe and sneeze on as many people as he can. The right to choose is what sets HPV apart, and it is this same right that we would be violating if we were to institute any sort of mandate requiring individuals to have the HPV vaccine.
Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/fashion/24virus.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
1 comment:
I agree that the government should have no right to require anyone to be forced to obtain a vaccination as such a mandate could violate the autonomy of an individual. Ideally, I think that the government should only have the power to suggest that people should obtain a vaccine. Unfortunately, whether the government mandates or suggests the vaccine, I believe that there would be other consequences. For example, insurance and health companies may discriminate against people who choose not to obtain the vaccines. Although such an action would appear unethical, insurance and health companies may argue that the vaccination can only benefit the individual as there are currently no known consequences or health issues. Even if the government does not specifically mandate that people should obtain the vaccine, insurance and health companies may have enough weight to influence people’s decisions regardless.
On another note, even if the government were not to mandate vaccinations, public utilities may require that people obtain the vaccines. Many universities and colleges, for example, require vaccinations including hepatitis, meningitis, tetanus, etc. Should universities be allowed to require an HPV vaccine as well? Where should we draw the line between not taking a vaccination as a right of autonomy and as posing as a danger to society?
Post a Comment