With the advent of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, the topic of mandatory vaccines for middle school students has become increasingly controversial. D.C. and Virginia have ratified and implemented HPV vaccination programs that mandate middle school girls to have the first dosage of the vaccine as a requirement for enrollment (website). Many other states, like Vermont and South Carolina, have pending legislation. In a Catholic News Agency article, Bishop Fred Henry of Canada, suggested that a program vaccinating young girls against HPV without providing moral guidance could be confused as condoning premarital sex. He reminds the Health Minister, Ron Liepert, that “ ‘No matter [the vaccine’s] effectiveness, the vaccine is not a substitute for chastity.’ ”
Not surprisingly, in the past Christian leaders have been skeptical of medical procedures for their moral and religious implications. Jerry Falwell in “Listen, America!” spoke out against abortion. Both Bishop Henry and Falwell would agree that these medical procedures could negate religious teachings. However, unlike Bishop Henry’s perspective on the HPV vaccine, Falwell did not seem to think that legislation supporting abortion would result in more premarital sex and pregnancy outside of marriage. So, does Bishop Henry present a valid concern or just an additional hindrance to precautions against the spread of a contagious virus?
The state has a responsibility to maintain public health and this implies providing medical attention to at risk youth. Liepert points out that the program would make the vaccine more affordable and accessible. Additionally, public schools are now teaching sex education in an effort to increase awareness of sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancy. Just as the flu vaccine does not encourage children to not wash their hands, the HPV vaccine probably will not encourage young girls to have premarital sex. But, it will abate the spread of a virus and is therefore very much needed to protect the public. Mario Cuomo, in “One Electorate Under God?” explains that public officials’ must act in the best interest of the community when reconciling legislation with their own religious beliefs. Cuomo writes, “The question for the religious public official, then, is not, Do I have the right to try to make public law match my religious belief? But, Should I try? (14)”
Yet, this issue continues to be the topic of heated debate. Should this program include lessons on the moral issues concerning premarital sex? Should religious beliefs be prioritized over concerns for public health?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Let me first raise issue with the HPV vaccine itself. In the declaratory article on the FDA website about its approval of Gardasil, they explain that the vaccine was tested for 6 months in four studies on 21,000 girls- all of which displayed effectiveness unless the HPV virus had been previously present. 6 MONTHS! That is nothing and we are going to give this vaccine, even make it mandatory, to the middle school girls of this country without knowing the effects? Furthermore, the vaccine was rushed through testing for lobbyists in TX so that they could make it mandatory under a blatantly racist agenda that I would encourage anyone to discover for themselves. I have one more issue with the mandating of the vaccine- exemptions. In TX they wrote it into their legislation so that parents could object to the mandatory vaccine even without a religious purpose. In IA, a parent may only obtain CO status on vaccines if there is religious motivation behind it. Therefore, mandating this vaccine raises other issues with establishment of religion that need to be addressed as well. Bishop Henry addresses both of these in a way stating that though the church has a religious stance in fighting against these requirements, they also have the interest of parental rights and the health risks of administering this vaccine without in depth analysis of the possible repercussions. I do not feel as though the HPV vaccine would encourage promiscuity, but I also do not feel the article at hand presents the Bishops argument well in regards to the religious objection. From what I understand however, the Catholic church struggles with all preventative measures as a means of encouragement or miscommunication with the youth. I feel thought that the Bishop simply wants this to be a choice of the parent (when it really should be the choice of the child considering it is her risk but...) and is advocating for education alongside the legislation, both of which I find valid. On an ending note, children receive vaccines everyday and do not question what they are for. What would make this one different? To prevent another rant, I will end there.
As mentioned in the original post, the State has a responsibility to protect the health of the citizenry and therefore the State has a compelling interest in a vaccine that, if determined by the FDA to be absolutely necessary, the government should be able to require vaccination. However, I understand the importance of Free-Exercise. While reading the article, I started thinking about a similar issue with service in the military. If the State is going to require something of it's citizenry which is objected to on religious grounds, the State should allow exemptions. In the same way that the military must legally allow conscientious objectors to military service, the State must allow objectors to vaccines like the HPV vaccine.
I don't think the HPV shot should be required for public school attendance. HPV isn't spread by normal contact as the chicken pocks or mumps. However, I still feel like students should opt to get it, but not that it be forced upon them.
If there was a compelling state interest (such as a substantial percentage of young students were infected with HPV) I would be more willing to encourage a mandatory HPV vaccine. Parents and female students should have the right to conscientiously object, with or without a religious reasoning. Refusing a vaccine is a part of free exercise that must be acknowledged.
I agree with the issue raised by Brittanie, in that I have substantial qualms with the fact that the vaccine was not thoroughly tested. I think it is permissible to recommend the vaccine for a certain age group (provided the girls and their parents are educated on the vaccine), but not for the state to require it; I think parents should be able to object to it for more than religious reasons. Personally I do not think that getting the vaccine will encourage someone to be promiscuous, and I fully support comprehensive sex ed as it aids decision making. However, given the nature of this vaccine and the controversy surrounding it, I do not believe it should be mandated.
In “Mandatory HPV Vaccine Programs and Catholic Disapproval,” Maggie discusses a battle in Canada between Bishop Fred Henry and Alberta Health Minister Ron Liepert, over HPV vaccinations. After succinctly summarizing the article, she compares the issue with abortion, and Jerry Falwell and adds his belief that pro-choice legislation would not lead to additional sex outside of marriage. Next, Maggie asserts that “The state has a responsibility to maintain public health and this implies providing medical attention to at risk youth” and supports the vaccinations, and concludes with supporting statements from the Catholic Mario Cuomo.
As it is the responsibility of the state to maintain the public health, it is also the responsibility of Catholic Bishops to maintain the spiritual health of their diocese. Having all children vaccinated from a sexually transmitted disease contradicts the teachings of the Catholic Church, for the obvious reason that if you were to follow Church teaching, you would not have this problem. By supporting mandated vaccinations, you are sending a message, while it may be subtle, of acceptance of sex outside of marriage. Also, Jerry Falwell is not an infallible source, and his assertion does not make the actions of Bishop Henry a “hindrance to precautions against the spread of a contagious virus.” One thing Maggie does not acknowledge is that the vaccine would devastate spiritual health and simultaneously could do the same to physical health. There have been deaths resulting from the vaccine. If there was a widespread disease caused by drug use, would anyone suggest mandatory vaccinations? The answer is no, because the vaccinations benefits do not outweigh the negative consequences of the message sent. Maggie also did not include the fact that the Catholic Church is not against the vaccination, but believes it to be the parents’ decision. If the decision were up to the parents, the message of acceptance of sex outside of marriage would be sparred to thousands, while those in need could receive the vaccination.
Post a Comment