Merck & Company, Inc., has a vaccine which may prevent certain diseases caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV). Out of the goodness of their hearts, and in the interest of $4 billion in estimated sales, Merck is asking the government to require that this vaccine be given to all girls between 11 and 26 years of age.
What passes for public debate in this country has settled on the trivia that HPV is transmitted sexually, and the question of whether mandating the vaccine would appear to constitute approval of sexual intercourse by minors. This is inconsequential, but does prevent the polity from discussing the more important question of whether the state should act at all.
I fail to see why the States should mandate this vaccine. HPV causes no immediate threat to the public health. It requires intimate contact to spread, something I doubt you’ll find often in public places.
HPV causes over 90% of the cases of cervical cancer, which is the second most common cancer and the third most deadly for women worldwide. The vaccine should reduce 70% of the cases of cervical cancer among vaccinated women. It’s not just about helping girls avoid an STD.
I would actually favor mandatory vaccination for STDs like this, mainly because voluntary vaccination won’t work when you have parents that want to pretend that their children won’t be having sex. “If we vaccinate, that sort of tells our children that we think it’s OK for them to have sex, which means they will.” Sort of like birth control pills. If it’s mandatory instead of voluntary, this logic no longer holds true, which makes it more socially acceptable to get the vaccination when you might not have otherwise. Since many of these children will, in fact, be having sex, and will run the risk of contracting HPV, this will potentially save a lot of lives.
The question of costs and public debate is still a good one, however.