Re: A Necessary Vaccine [NYT Editorial]
From: Kim Elise Goldman (goldman@calweb.com)
Mon Feb 26 14:48:04 2007
Who paid for this editorial?
On Feb 26, 2007, at 3:09 PM, Dean Huffman . wrote:
> .
>
> Editorial in today's NY Times
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/opinion/26mon1.html
>
> - - - -
>
> A Necessary Vaccine
>
> Published: February 26, 2007
>
> Debate over a new vaccine to prevent cervical cancer and genital
> warts has
> reached a high pitch. State legislatures are debating whether to
> mandate the
> vaccine or insist that its use be kept voluntary. The manufacturer
> stopped a
> vigorous lobbying campaign lest it provoke more opposition than
> support. And
> some health professionals who had been championing the vaccine
> flinched at
> making it mandatory, at least for now.
>
> Even so, state legislatures should require that all young girls be
> given this
> vaccine, which protects against a virus that causes some 10,000 new
> cases of
> cervical cancer in the United States each year — and 3,700 cancer
> deaths.
>
> Three weeks ago we applauded Gov. Rick Perry for making Texas the
> first state to
> require vaccinating young schoolgirls — ages 11 and 12 — against
> the human
> papillomavirus. In the ensuing uproar, the Texas House has moved to
> overturn
> his order, but the Virginia Legislature has approved a similar
> mandate. Some 20
> states have bills pending to require the vaccinations for school
> attendance.
>
> We have endorsed a mandate because the vaccine — Merck’s Gardasil —
> looks highly
> effective against strains that cause 70 percent of all cervical
> cancer. With
> more than two million doses already distributed, the reported side
> effects have
> been mostly minor, such as dizziness or fainting. Many parents who
> oppose a
> mandate are aghast at the thought of vaccinating such young girls
> against a
> sexually transmitted disease. But the vaccine works only if taken
> before a girl
> becomes infected. Social conservatives object that the vaccine will
> encourage
> promiscuity, but it seems farfetched to believe that protection
> from cervical
> cancer will change any girl’s behavior. Others complain that a
> mandate will
> pre-empt parental rights to make health decisions, but all vaccine
> mandates do
> that, to protect the children and those they might infect.
>
> The strongest arguments against moving ahead quickly tend to be
> practical and
> financial. States have typically used school mandates for vaccines
> that are
> already in wide use, and it is possible that unexpected side
> effects could
> emerge (though any mandate could be suspended if that happened).
> Health
> professionals also need to be certain that there are stable
> supplies, adequate
> insurance coverage, ample public money to vaccinate low-income
> children and
> physician support.
>
> Merck deserves praise for developing Gardasil at a time when many
> companies shun
> the vaccine business as risky and unprofitable. But it is charging
> $360 for a
> three-dose regimen, a price that might come down if a competing
> vaccine enters
> the market soon, as expected.
>
> The vaccine could prevent thousands of new cases of cervical cancer
> annually and
> hundreds of thousands of cases of genital warts and precancerous
> growths. A
> mandate would force the health care system to get cracking. And it
> is the best
> way to ensure that all children get the vaccine, not just those who
> are aware
> of it and can afford it.
>
