Ali Capener Human Biology 1090 Taking Sides 3/16/13 On the YES side: 1.

The major thesis here is that the government is trying to make the HPV vaccination a requirement for kids just entering school. However, there are certain limits to this vaccine in the potency of it's medicine working. There is an age limit, rather a time line, that young girls and women have to adhere by. 2. The beneficence applied to the YES position is that this vaccine will benefit thousands and thousands of women in the years to come. The non-maleficence of this vaccine is that it will virtually do no harm to any of these women. In any case, it will help keep them protected from contracting cervical cancer. The autonomy on the YES side has shown that people are refusing to vaccinate their children based on a religious stance, a moral stance, or some other reason. The justice applied to the YES side is that they are trying to be fair to these women by giving them the help that they need if they can't afford to get vaccinated. 3. The author of the YES position has presented us with quite a few facts about mandatory vaccine programs. A few of them are 1)mandatory vaccines greatly lower the risk of women contracting the Human Papillomavirus and Cervical Cancer. 2)There is a certain age time line of girls and women for them to receive the vaccination. That time line is from ages 13-26. 3)The government has made certain programs for young girls and women to receive the vaccine even if they have no insurance or are on Medicaid. 4. One opinion the author presented was that if this vaccine were to become mandatory, it would save many lives. Another opinion stated was that, in order for this vaccine to work at full power, it would really need to be received by women prior to sexual activity. For that is when the vaccine is most potent. 5. Some of the concerns about mandating this vaccine are: the long-term safety of the vaccine and the effectiveness of the vaccine. The author's position on these two concerns are: first, the vaccine has, thus far, shown no harmful side effects or any other ailments. The effectiveness of this vaccine has so far worked quite well. The case of cervical cancer has dropped greatly. 6. Some of the consequences on the YES position are that people want to be able to have their own choice in whether or not they get vaccinated. The parents of these young girls refuse to have their kids vaccinated based solely on a religious standpoint or a moral standpoint. Also, many people believe that the government shouldn't be able to run their lives. They want to be their own person. On the NO side: 1. The major thesis here is that mandating the HPV vaccine is completely unnecessary. Why? Because having the HPV vaccine mandated for kids just entering school is not needed. They are not sexually active at that time and do not pose a threat of transmitting or contracting this disease. To have this vaccine mandated would be costly and highly unnecessary. 2. 1)Long-Term Safety and Effectiveness of the Vaccine Is Unknown. This prong basically states that the vaccine could possibly have harmful effects later down the line. 2)Historical Justifications for Mandated Vaccination Are Not Met. Mandating a vaccination in the past has been justified and able to be passed by law. 3)In the Absence of Historical Justification, the Government Risks Public Backlash by Mandating HPV Vaccination. 3. The authors of the NO position have presented us with plenty of evidence. A few facts from said evidence are: 1)Mandating the vaccine is premature because it would go against the Constitutional Principles of Equality and Due Process. Meaning, everyone should have the

Ali Capener Human Biology 1090 Taking Sides 3/16/13 opportunity to choose if they get the vaccination or not. 2)Mandating the vaccine would be really costly. Why? Because making this vaccine a mandatory thing would cost the government billions of dollars in making the vaccine readily available to physicians', etc. 3)Mandating this vaccine would be controversial because it is targeted at only one gender. Males contribute to the HPV disease just as well as females do. 4. Some of the opinions of the author stated on the NO side are: 1)Having this vaccine be mandatory is not needed because kids do not run the risk of contracting or transmitting this disease. 2)Mandating this vaccine would go against everyone having the freedom of choice. If they don't want this medicine, then that is their own choice. The government shouldn't be able to push this on them if they do not want it. 5. No, the authors are not actually saying no to the use of the HPV vaccine in teenage girls. They are simply stating their opinion that it would be premature and ill-advised. They're saying that making this mandatory would violate Constitutional Principles of Equality(which, it definitely would) and that it would take away their right to choose whether or not they want this. 6. Some of the consequences of this author's point-of-view would be that people who want this vaccine to be mandated would be up in arms about it because they believe that it would save lives. I'm not saying that this vaccine wouldn't save lives, because it would, but people who support mandating this would fight even harder for it to be mandated. The liberal opt-out policy is a bit controversial in the way that it lets people OPT OUT of receiving the vaccination. Rather, if the child is a minor, it lets their parents opt out of getting their child vaccinated. I think this policy is a touchy subject based on the fact that a lot of people think that mandating this vaccine would be in the best interest of females all over the nation. Overall: 1. I, personally, am on the NO side. I believe that the NO side had the most substantial evidence on its side. It presented me with more facts than the YES side did. No, I don't think there are any reasons to believe that these authors' are biased because they've read up on the information. 2. I feel that the NO side is correct because it had more evidence than the YES side. The YES side presented me with facts about how the vaccine will save lives and prevent cancer and whatnot, which is great, but the NO side explained how it would cost a lot of money and it would take away peoples' freedom of choice. 3. Mandating the vaccine for boys would have the same backlash as mandating it for girls would. Just because they are different genders doesn't mean they don't have the same risks. Boys can contract HPV just like girls can. Its the same thing. However, only girls can contract Cervical Cancer because only girls have a cervix. It would have the same backlash because it would take away a boy's freedom of choice as well. 4. Mandating an annual influenza shot would probably receive some of the same backlash. Maybe not as severe, maybe more so, but I think it would still be a bad idea. America is supposed to be a free country where we can make our own decisions and do what we please. Mandating that vaccine would take away our ability to choose for ourselves. Reflective Writing: The impact this assignment had on me was pretty substantial. It changed the view I had on the country I live in by showing me that the government tries to control too much of our lives. It tries to make everything be a mandatory thing. I think this assignment shows the growth I've had in this class by

Ali Capener Human Biology 1090 Taking Sides 3/16/13 broadening my knowledge of things. Like my knowledge of what mandating the HPV vaccine would do to us. I think I've learned a lot in this class, so far, and this assignment is just reiterating that by showing you what I've learned and what I've taken from this assignment.