A Necessary Vaccine

[magician]

I just noticed this:

I don’t know why but I had the impression (maybe from Merck’s ad campaign?) that cervical cancer was like the new breast cancer. Ten thousand cases a year – less than four thousand deaths? I am not making light of anyone’s suffering but I’m sure there are bigger health problems that this money could be spent on.
Spending the money on more effective anti-smoking and anti-obesity campaigns in schools would save more lives but wouldn’t profit and big pharmaceutical company.

That’s extremely cynical. The fact is that, even if HPV-infected women don’t develop cervical cancer, they have a multitude of problems including difficult births, miscarriages, break-through bleeding just to name a few.
Cervical cancer can take up to 20 years to develop in HPV infected women. If 1 in 4 are infected now, the rate of cervical cancer will increase tremendously over the next 20 years.
Your comment as to where money should be spent is analogous to the dictator who decides who lives and who dies. These are not “orphan” diseases - they are prevalent and increasing rapidly. Monies should be divided equally among them.

 

[Maranatha]

That’s extremely cynical. The fact is that, even if HPV-infected women don’t develop cervical cancer, they have a multitude of problems including difficult births, miscarriages, break-through bleeding just to name a few.
Cervical cancer can take up to 20 years to develop in HPV infected women. If 1 in 4 are infected now, the rate of cervical cancer will increase tremendously over the next 20 years.
Your comment as to where money should be spent is analogous to the dictator who decides who lives and who dies. These are not “orphan” diseases - they are prevalent and increasing rapidly. Monies should be divided equally among them.

The poster didn’t dictate anything. It a plain fact that we have a limited amount of resources and we have to allocate those resources as best we can.

 

[magician]

The poster didn’t dictate anything. It a plain fact that we have a limited amount of resources and we have to allocate those resources as best we can.

Of course we do, but how would you like to get a diagnosis for cervical cancer and have your doc tell you “sorry, all the money went to non-smoking, obesity, etc. campaigns”?

And yes, that it is dictating when someone decides arbitrarily that funds should be allocated to only certain diseases and conditions. It’s undemocratic.

 

[jman507]

It’s an acknowledgement of responsibility for a potential outcome.
In the not too distant future, health insurance providers will be able to deny claims if the patient had the opportunity to avoid a condition but didn’t. This will apply to any disease where a scientifically proven prevention methodology is available.

Daughters who have been denied the vaccine also have a right to know that their parents had made that decision, particularly if they become infected prior to the age of 18 after which they can legally seek out the vaccine on their own.

I guess that also means health insurance providers are undemocrated too.

 

[magician]

I guess that also means health insurance providers are undemocrated too.

Why would you think otherwise??

 

[jman507]

Why would you think otherwise??

I was just intrested to see if you thought the medical system set up was either of the two choices:

A) The orginal system was set up immorally, on the basis of being undemocratic. Then a change to put more money in try to prevent obesity and smoking, would be immoral, but not change the state of the system being immoral, because it all ready is.

or

B) The system now is moral, as far as allocation of funds, but that change of the allocation of funds would make the system immoral.

 

[magician]

I was just intrested to see if you thought the medical system set up was either of the two choices:

A) The orginal system was set up immorally, on the basis of being undemocratic. Then a change to put more money in try to prevent obesity and smoking, would be immoral, but not change the state of the system being immoral, because it all ready is.

or

B) The system now is moral, as far as allocation of funds, but that change of the allocation of funds would make the system immoral.

I wouldn’t characterize the “system” as moral or immoral. A system evolves based on perceived needs and available assets. By “undemocratic” I mean that making arbitrary decisions as to how funds are allocated based on current trends or popular perception is not only unfair but also unwise.
It’s also important to recognize that the research which produces vaccines, treatments and cures is for the most part privately funded. Even public universities are considered “private” when it comes to products produced in their labs.
My opinion is that the beneficial results of ALL research should be made available to the public without prejudice as to the “disease of the day” (i.e. obsesity, smoking, etc.).

 

[jman507]

Well as far as it looks the vaccine is available to the public, so I don’t see where the problem is with Didymus’s idea. Now as far as who picks up the cost, if you say the insurance is private and they can figure out how to decide how to cover what, then thats fine. If you argue they should cover it, cause it is undemocrated thus wrong, how can you say it is right for them to make any decision on coverage at all?

 

[magician]

Here is the problem:

“Ten thousand cases a year – less than four thousand deaths? I am not making light of anyone’s suffering but I’m sure there are bigger health problems that this money could be spent on.”

Don’t you see it?

 

[magician]

I would also point out that:

“Spending the money on more effective anti-smoking and anti-obesity campaigns in schools would save more lives but wouldn’t profit and big pharmaceutical company.”

If you stop over eating and stop smoking you are on your way to recovery, even cure.

Of course, if everyone stops having sex, HPV would be cured as well. Now wouldn’t that be a triumph for humanity!!

 

[jman507]

Here is the problem:

“Ten thousand cases a year – less than four thousand deaths? I am not making light of anyone’s suffering but I’m sure there are bigger health problems that this money could be spent on.”

Don’t you see it?

Yeah, I see decisions need to be made, but that some may make the decision on how to allocate funds I never thought to be wrong if they were not always divided equally.

 

[jman507]

I would also point out that:

“Spending the money on more effective anti-smoking and anti-obesity campaigns in schools would save more lives but wouldn’t profit and big pharmaceutical company.”

If you stop over eating and stop smoking you are on your way to recovery, even cure.

Of course, if everyone stops having sex, HPV would be cured as well. Now wouldn’t that be a triumph for humanity!!

Now let’s say that happens, by using the idea that all money should be devided equally we should still spend money on progams for all three problems, instead of spending money on the “new disease of the day.”

 

[magician]

Well, I guess it depends on your perspective. If Altzheimer’s runs in your family and one or your parents is afflicted, I would bet that you would be pleased if research dollars were devoted to the disease.

The HPV vaccine issue is all about sex. Has nothing to do with medicine, health care or government policy. If the latest vaccine was effective against premature balding, I don’t think the response would be the same. Do you?

 

[jman507]

Well, I guess it depends on your perspective. If Altzheimer’s runs in your family and one or your parents is afflicted, I would bet that you would be pleased if research dollars were devoted to the disease.

The HPV vaccine issue is all about sex. Has nothing to do with medicine, health care or government policy. If the latest vaccine was effective against premature balding, I don’t think the response would be the same. Do you?

I would be against making it a mandatory vaccine. The money would be better spent elseware. Also vaccines shouldn’t be tossed around like candy. Vaccines can be unsafe, it’s not worth a worse side-effect, especially if the actual effect is not that important.

 

[magician]

Now let’s say that happens, by using the idea that all money should be devided equally we should still spend money on progams for all three problems, instead of spending money on the “new disease of the day.”

It isn’t just a question of dividing funds equally. It’s also about recognizing new data and research. Yes, I believe that, given “x” amount of dollars to healthcare, we should distribute the assets as equally as possible. But new research, which shows the benefit of an innovative technology, should be available to the public on a timely basis.

 

[magician]

I would be against making it a mandatory vaccine. The money would be better spent elseware. Also vaccines shouldn’t be tossed around like candy. Vaccines can be unsafe, it’s not worth a worse side-effect, especially if the actual effect is not that important.

The “actual effect”, as you put it, is a lethal cancer. I wouldn’t take it so lightly.

 

[Margaret33]

I just have one thing to say. I work in healthcare, and I see the hundred of HPV cases which are found in any given month, just in one clinic, in one semi-affluent area of the state. Women who had no idea such a virus existed. As well as the many cases of cervical cancer. The fact that they have linked one to the other is good, very good. There are many women who discover they have gotten HPV from their husbands, and they usually don’t find out until after a year or so later, when and if it shows up on a pap test. If these women had been vaccinated at a early age, they wouldn’t be facing what they are facing now. True, the girls being vaccinated today have a moral choice: not to have premarital sex. And, they may grow up and decide they need it when they’re older. But if they don’t, if they decide that sex within marriage will prevent this from happening to them, and it’s uneccessary, they are playing a game of roulette. If they decide “that won’t happen to me” like so many other heterosexual men and women seem to think is the case for STD’s… they wind up regretting it later. HPV is rampant. It’s silently present and undetectable in many cases, and there is no cure. If we can prevent a future generation from growing up to face a a future with just one uncurable cancer, why not?

 

[jman507]

The “actual effect”, as you put it, is a lethal cancer. I wouldn’t take it so lightly.

For the balding vaccine? No I wouldn’t want funding to go to that even if it breaks the rule, all funding should be equal.

As far as HPV, I think you make a stronger case that you should try to fund based upon the least costs to greatest needs, with some funding across the board – that is hardly ever equal, but I would say equitable.

 

[magician]

" True, the girls being vaccinated today have a moral choice: not to have premarital sex. And, they may grow up and decide they need it when they’re older. But if they don’t, if they decide that sex within marriage will prevent this from happening to them, and it’s uneccessary, they are playing a game of roulette."

That is a very astute analysis. I, too, am in the health care profession as well as being a research scientist.

The issue is a non-starter if you are over the age of 18 simply because you are in control of your own healthcare and can get the vaccine if you so wish.
What we are discussing here is whether parents of underage girls should take the precautionary measure by having their daughters vaccinated. It’s somewhat of a no-brainer, but, as I mentioned before, I am against mandatory vaccination, or mandatory anything with regard to healthcare. Parents have the right to govern their children.
By the same token, there is an element of responsibility. If you do not vaccinate and your daughter becomes infected, who is responsible? If you say the daughter because she engaged in sex prematurely, then she should have had the right to avail herself of the vaccine in the first place.

 

[magician]

For the balding vaccine? No I wouldn’t want funding to go to that even if it breaks the rule, all funding should be equal.

As far as HPV, I think you make a stronger case that you should try to fund based upon the least costs to greatest needs, with some funding across the board – that is hardly ever equal, but I would say equitable.

That’s a valid point, but as a researcher, I can tell you that no one knows ahead of time what will turn out to be the “least cost to the greatest need”. That’s the nature of research. You just don’t know.