Gov. Timothy M. Kaine expressed concern Tuesday about legislation that would require young girls to be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus. (via)
After initially supporting this legislation (SB1230 and HB2035), I’m beginning to have second thoughts. My change of heart is based around a couple of things.
First, like Gov. Kaine, I understand the need to vaccinate against communicable diseases, but HPV is not one of them. So mandating a vaccine seems a bit too much of nanny-state-ism to me. Informing the public of it makes sense, but the decision on vaccination should be completely that of the parents.
Second, there was a Washington Post article today that indicates that while the number of US women infected with the virus – estimated at 7.5 million – is larger than expected, only 2.2% of them were carrying one of the two strains most likely to lead to cervical cancer, a rate which is about half of that previously reported.
The National Cancer Institute says that 70% of cervical cancer comes from the two strains. So by my math, some 115,500 females between the ages of 14 and 24 should end up with cervical cancer. Yet the NCI estimates that we will see 11,150 new cervical cancer cases and 3,670 deaths from cervical cancer in 2007. (The US rates are lower than other parts of the world due to the use of the Pap smear for screening.)
Now, I’m in no way making light of the fact that anyone is diagnosed with cancer but assuming that the 115,500 women calculated above do end up with cervical cancer, this vaccination does nothing for them.
Brian Ledbetter over at SnappedShot.com has been writing about the vaccine. While he relied on a couple of Washington Times articles about the issue, I found that the WT used stats provided by the NCI. The NCI site says (emphasis mine):
Studies are under way to determine if a booster, in addition to the three initial intramuscular injections, will be necessary for long-term protection. Clinicians know that the new cancer vaccine remains effective for up to at least 4 years, but more research is needed to find out what happens after that time.
That is the clincher for me. Mandating a vaccine whose effectiveness is unknown is irresponsible governing. And if the WT article is to be believed, 45% of those vaccinated will be done so at a cost to taxpayers.
Given that this vaccine was just approved by the FDA last June, I believe it is in our best interests to wait and see what the future holds. In the meantime, by all means notify parents and young women of the availability of the vaccine and allow them to decide whether it is appropriate.
But mandate it? No.
Technorati Tags: HPV vaccination
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
vivian,
the house amended the bill to provide a parental opt-out provision otherwise it would have died on the floor.
Del. Saxman – I’m aware of the parental opt-out, but I’m no longer convinced at this point that this bill is necessary.
You forgot to mention the very persuasive editorial in the Pilot.
And what Virginia Beach Delegate voted against this in committee using the same reasoning?
hint…it was the same delegate who was talking about gas taxes for roads before anyone else was.
Vivian,
You have put this to words in ways far beyond my abilities. Thank you so much!
Delegate Saxman,
With all due respect. the wording in the House\’s opt-out provision seems somewhat excessive to me. It appears that the House is suggesting that parents should only review \”materials … approved for such use by the Board,\” which seems to me as if the Commonwealth will be dictating which materials are \”acceptable\” for use in justifying an exemption from the vaccine, and denying the exemption otherwise.
Is that the intent of that Amendment? Or am I reading too much into it?
Most Respectfully,
Brian L.
Snapped Shot
I think they should definately wait a few years before mandating this vaccine if they are to do it at all. It just came out so it is too early to actually be able to see its effectiveness.
Besides, after some time calling it an HPV vaccine can be misleading. There are a lot of different strands of the virus and the vaccine only gets a few. So someone who gets the vaccine can still come down with “Genital worts”, the other side effect of select strands of HPV.
So I agree with you. Very informative post.
– Jae, a manassas conservative
Dave – I didn’t see the VP editorial 😉
There really was not a whole lot of discussion on the bill before it go to the floor. The floor debate was quite passionate with many personal stories about cancer and delegate’s children and the need to protect women from cancer.
I am still amazed that there is a cancer vaccine!
Anyway, the consensus was that the bill was not ready to pass unless there was some parental control over the decision to mandate a vaccine of which we really had littleinformation. So we adopted the amendment for an opt out.
If the legislation is signed, which Kaine says he will do, and we need to change it next year then we will do so.
Whether the amendment is too strong or too weak will be up to the people to decide and then the legislature will react accordingly.
Thanks for posting on this!
Great blog!
HPV also has health consequences for males who carrier it, including cancer of the penis. Just in case anyone was afraid men were indifferent, this fact should solve it.
But no one is mandating HPV vaccine for men.