The journey from there to here
Maybe Democracy DOES Still Work In America
Published on May 8, 2007 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

Governor Rick Perry announced today that he will not veto the bill put forth by the legislature revoking Perry's executive order that would have mandated all incoming sixth graders receive the HPV vaccine. In a rare case of doing something right, the legislature was reacting to overwhelming public pressure opposing the order.

The executive order was cronyism at its finest; vaccine manufacturer Merck had spent a lot of good money on the Perry campaign; money that would have netted them a pretty hefty windfall had they succeeded. Perry's order ignored the taxpayers, it ignored the legislators, and it ignored anything even remotely resembling decency from someone who dared call themselves a public servant.

Proponents of the vaccine's mandatory status will point to the number of deaths from cervical cancer that could have arguably been prevented by the vaccine. They will rightly point out that this vaccine has great promise in preventing ONE cause of cervical cancer, and that it has benefits in that regard.

What they will NOT tell you is that there is no reason to make this vaccine mandatory. School vaccines are required for one reason: because students are confined in an enclosed space, there is an increased risk of exposure to a disease simply beause of sharing space. HPV is not an airborne virus, it is transmitted through sexual activity, and, frankly, if there is a risk of transmitting HPV in our public schools, we have WAY bigger things to worry about than the possibility of getting cervical cancer through exposure.

I have always contended that parents, not the government, should make medical decisions for their kids. While there are compelling reasons why this vaccine should be available, it should NOT be made mandatory, and it definitely should not have become so without even consulting the public.

As the father of four girls, I will almost certainly discuss options such as the HPV in the same way as I discuss options like birth control. Like many parents, I genuinely hope my daughters save themselves for marriage. There are a whole lot of physical, mental and emotional consequences that they could suffer that are FAR worse than any threat HPV presents, though, and those concern me even more than the risk of cervical cancer. Ultimately, though, there's very little I can do but allow them to make certain choices and hope I've taught them right.

Rick Perry's attempted end around the state legislature resulted in a sack. He did not speak for the majority of Texans, and even the elected officials were quick to realize that much. The sad part of it is, the very public failure of his attempt to force vaccination on Texas' schoolchildren may reflect negatively on the vaccine itself, a vaccine that may hold great promise in saving lives.

But even with all that promise, it should never have been forced on us. And I, for one, thank the legislature for agreeing.

 


Comments
on May 08, 2007

Sorry Gid, but I'm not sure you've gotten a win here, or at least not one that anyone should be proud of.

Look, I am whole heartedly for parental notification and parental involvement in sexual education matters and all of the related issues that surround that topic.  I want to know if my daughter is going for an abortion while she's still below 18 years of age, and feel I have a right to know it, or at least for her mother to know it if I'm not directly informed.

And yes, I think it's a good idea for parents to be able to decide for themselves when a child is ready for sex ed, the facts of life, etc.

But....

There are way too many parents that will never broach the subject with their children.  Never help them keep themselves safe, and will wind up letting their children suffer the consequences via cancer, std's, and other problems.

Should this vaccination program have been mandatory?  I don't know, but I don't believe it was necessarily a bad thing to try to help prevent a very nasty health issue for future generations.  Was someone going to profit from it?  Yes, that always happens in our system.  But just because someone stood to profit doesn't mean that there aren't benefits that make it worth pursuing for everyone.

Perhaps the program will be modified to an opt-in program, but will that many people really opt-in to having their children vaccinated for something when they ignorantly assume that their daughters are good little girls that aren't sexually active??  They'd probably opt-in right about the time that poor girl is showing the 5-month belly.  Fat lot of good it does then.

on May 08, 2007
Actually Gid, I'm gonna toss up a related story that you might find interesting (and apologies if already covered elsewhere, but it's well worth discussion).
on May 08, 2007
I don't know, but I don't believe it was necessarily a bad thing to try to help prevent a very nasty health issue for future generations


Are you aware that cervical cancer ranks VERY low on the causes of death for young women in the age range? Does it make sense to spend an extremely high amount of resources to address a health problem that will not affect most women, and in the vast majority of cases will only affect them because of behavioral CHOICES.

Rick Perry has no right ORDERING every sixth grader in Texas to receive this vaccination. Not in a society that even PRETENDS to be based on Democracy. Did the legislature BAN the vaccine? NO THEY DID NOT! It's not banned, it's just no longer mandatory.

Parents and medical professionals should make medical decisions, NOT the government. Period.
on May 08, 2007
And look, if a 16 year old girl goes to her doctor and says "look, I'm having sex and I want to protect myself", I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with the doctor discussing the matter with the parents in a tactful way (and there IS a tactful way to approach this, honestly). But doesn't the idea of shooting our kids up with drugs smack not a little bit of an authoritarian government, terp. Where does it stop?
on May 08, 2007
And here's the aforementioned related story: Prom Babies... what a stupid, stupid life choice
on May 08, 2007

Gid - by the time the young girl *thinks* to discuss the issue with their doctor it is *already too late* in most cases to have the vaccine do the job it was intended for.  It is preventative medicine, and though it may not prevent the disease for all, the loss of any life is a waste, no matter how much we might want to trace it back to someone's behavior.

Let me turn it around you this way:  would you not try to help stop AIDS if you knew you could through the use of a vaccine?  It's a behavioral problem in most cases too, isn't it?

Am I perhaps falling victim to alarmist reports on the numbers of women carrying HPV?  Perhaps.  But if it can be prevented, then damnit, I believe we should be doing everything possible to stop it.  The young woman that dies from it could be my daughter, or my grand-daughter (hopefully in the distant future for the grand-daughter part, hopefully not on the dies from it part!!!).

Someone I'm related to may pick up HPV because the vaccine they were given lost it's effectiveness over time and their partner may have had unprotected sex with someone else that *never* had the vaccine to begin with and is now potentially carrying the disease.

Shooting kids up with drugs doesn't appeal to me either, but I don't want to see Cancer take the life of anyone that could have been saved from it.  Is one life worth thousands, or hundred of thousands of vaccinations that cost the tax-payers money?  Consider that it could be the next Albert Einstein (make that Alberta), Marie Curie, or some other famous figure that finds the cure for other cancers, develops a way to turn salt water into a fuel we can drive our cars with, or any number of other things.

Consider also that there are *lots* of pig-headed parents in the bible belt that will *never* acknowledge that their children are going to be sexually active in the not so distant future once they've reached the age they would be getting these vaccines at.  Those parents could be condemning their child to unnecessary suffering because they didn't want to deal with real facts of life.

Sorry, but again, I don't think the state is wrong there.  I think some pig-headed parents are wrong, and for some people it could wind up being *dead wrong*.

on May 08, 2007
Let me turn it around you this way: would you not try to help stop AIDS if you knew you could through the use of a vaccine?


If I had to let 100 people die of other diseases to save one? HELL NO! And that is PRECISELY what we are doing by using STATE resources to vaccinate girls against HPV instead of using that money elsewhere.

Sorry, but again, I don't think the state is wrong there. I think some pig-headed parents are wrong, and for some people it could wind up being *dead wrong*.


"The STATE", may I remind you, VOTED NOT to make the vaccine mandatory. Sorry, terp, much as you apparently hate it, we do NOT live in a monarchy, but in a Republic. Governor Perry issued an EXECUTIVE ORDER.

I'm surprised at you, terp. You supposedly argue for lower taxes, yet you defend a third of a million dollar gift from Rick Perry to his corporate buddies at Merck. As a parent, I am offended and appalled that you would suggest that my children are property of the state and that my wife and I should have no say in their upbringing. And that is PRECISELY what you ARE saying. Oddly enough, it is COMPLETELY inconsistent with everything else you've posted here.
on May 08, 2007

Gid, you are twisting the words and trying to make it look as if I've said things I haven't.  Sorry, but it won't work and I don't buy it.

None of our children are property of the state, but there are times when the State and society as a whole has a greater responsibility than that which a bunch of two-bit politicians elected in a state filled with Bible thumping voters wants to go for.

You are crying foul because Perry showed *leadership*, and you are trying to link it back to some supposed quid pro quo between he and Merck.  I've not read the news directly on that issue, but I suspect you're finding a problem where none exists, and using it as an excuse for keeping government out of your life, and out of the lives of your children.

Keeping the government out of our lives is a noble goal, but sometimes the government is interfering in our lives because they owe it to the greater good, and because there are incompetent weasels serving as parents.  You may not be (and I don't believe you are a weasel by the way), but there are many parents that are but children themselves.  Ignorant in the facts, and too stupid or ashamed of their lack of knowledge to make the right decisions for their children.

I don't like Nanny states any more than you do, and I hate seeing money wasted, but then again I'd turn this back around and ask you where you'd spend the money?  What disease are you going to stop with the money?

Hell, I'll make it really easy for you -- get the money for this issue by taking it out of CPS' budget leaving them unable to interfere with families.  Perhaps that'd make you happier.

on May 08, 2007
And if it were a mandatory AIDS vaccine, sorry, terp, I would fight against it. AIDS is not epidemic, nor for that matter, is cervical cancer. I could name hundreds of diseases with higher fatality rates than both that deserve more attention.

When Rick Perry issued his decree, I carefully outlined several of the objections I had to it. Parental choice is one, but also the size of the control group and the followup (the 9 year old girls who were given this vaccine were only followed for 18 months; one would certainly hope they weren't sexually active in the interim time period and thus able to truly test the efficacy of the vaccine), as well as the fact that hard data from the study was not readily available. Is this drug ready for the market? Probably. Is it ready to be shot into the arm of every 11 year old girl in the country? NO. Not until/unless the states involved are willing to assume full liability for possible complications.

on May 08, 2007
You are crying foul because Perry showed *leadership*,


Perry DICTATED. Whatever happened to checks and balances, terp?

The legislature overrode Perry, and they did it DECISIVELY. And they did right.
on May 09, 2007

The problem with reading the most recent article list, is that you come in on the end of a stream and work to the beginning.

That being said, 2 comments.

1. I doubt Merck's contributions had any direct bearing on the edict.

2. Perry was way over the line, and I am glad the Texas legislature smacked him down.

on May 09, 2007
1. I doubt Merck's contributions had any direct bearing on the edict.


I would have to disagree with you here, Dr. Guy. We will never know for sure, though, but I find it highly odd that a state not knowing for being at the forefront of medical technology would take the lead on this, and the money trail leads back to the Governor's pocket.

It's also important to note that this legislature could not agree on school finance bills, yet came out en masse against the Gov.
on May 09, 2007
I would have to disagree with you here, Dr. Guy. We will never know for sure


True - I should have said, "in my opinion". As we really dont and probably wont know.