BreckLee Brown

HPV Vaccines

11:00-11:50 A.M

Monday, October 13, 2014

1. It is moral to justify the vaccination program of compulsory Human

Papillomavirus.
2. Mandating HPV vaccines for minor females is premature and all the facts arent
present to justify making it mandatory.
3. HPV can lead to a lot of pain and suffering, and it is said that in the U.S. young
people are having sexual relationships and this places them at a higher risk of
getting an STI.
a. Vaccinations are very common in the U.S. to help reduce diseases, the
only difference with the HPV vaccine is it is optional and it brings the
problem of moral, social, and scientific concerns among society.
4. State-mandated laws first came about in the 1800s due to a fear of getting
smallpox. The HPV vaccine is different from the smallpox vaccine in that girls
are afraid of getting the disease but it is not mandatory yet because not a large
amount of girls are sexually active at a young age.
5. The mandated compulsory vaccination program has the potential to improve
disease prevention immensely.
a. A compulsory program has the potential to help the populations that are at
higher risk of getting the disease instead of the utilitarian cost-benefit
approach, which helps the greatest amount of people, but it is costly.
Instead the compulsory program targets populations that are at the greatest
risk. The compulsory vaccination is a better way of ensuring that people
get justice and protection from the harm that is HPV infection.

6. The HPV vaccine wont eliminate the use of testing and screening patients for
cervical cancer. It will simply reduce the risk of getting the disease with the
combination of both the shot and a yearly screening.
a. The vaccines that are state-mandated are very necessary in todays society
and the HPV vaccine does not represent a public health threat yet. If the
vaccine becomes state-mandated it could create a large public backlash.
7.

To me it seems like the entire first two paragraphs are misleading. I say this
because it starts out talking about polio. The whole first two paragraphs are about
polio and sure they do use polio as an example when you read further into the
article but this information could be a little misleading and confusing. You would
never guess that the article was on HPV by just reading the first two paragraphs.

8. The very first paragraph of the no side is a little confusing as well. It starts off
talking about how the vaccination is good and then ends with it being premature
and a health issue. This is a little misleading seeming how the side is against the
shot.
9. I believe that the no side is the most correct. Ive done outside research on this
topic and I believe that the HPV vaccine is too premature to make it statemandated. They dont have all of the information on it to make sure it is 100%
effective and safe.
10. I would say the yes side uses the most scientific data to back up the thesis
statement. I still stand behind the no side even though there are more scientific
findings in the yes side.

11. Stating a reason why they would be biased is very hard because we arent given
much information on the authors. The first authors, Gail Javitt and Lawrence
Gostin are law professors who maybe feel biased because they have studied into
state-mandated laws and know which ones are best for the community. The
second author, Deena Berkowitz is a physician and may be biased because shes
maybe treated people and distributed the HPV vaccine and believes that it doesnt
necessarily help all that much.