Proposal beneficial to adolescent health
The word “mandate” sounds harsh and carries negative connotations; it denotes force and the disposal of independence. “Mandate,” therefore, is a word Americans detest — we never want anyone, let alone the government, to infringe upon our rights, and rightly so.
With that said, my ears perked up when I read that Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas) had made efforts to mandate that all girls in sixth grade and up receive the HPV vaccine.
Edwin Rodriguez | Daily Trojan
Ideally, for the vaccine to be effective, the patient should not be sexually active at the time of injection — which is completed in three stages, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
Unfortunately, Perry’s actions have received negative media attention, especially after Republican presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said, “I’m a mom and I’m a mom of three children and to have innocent little 12-year-old girls be forced to have a government injection through an executive order is just flat out wrong.”
When a mandate is approved for the greater good of a society — in this case the greater health of society — such an action is not wrong in any way.
HPV is a virus with about 100 strains. Thirty of these affect the genitals, and 13 are known to lead to cervical cancer. Currently, as many as 20 million Americans have some active form of HPV, according to the CDC.
Clearly then, this is an epidemic affecting the American population — most notably our youth. This is where things get controversial. On one hand, conservatives have argued that approving this mandate encourages youth to have sex.
On the other hand, proponents of Perry’s mandate find the requirement of the vaccine a positive step in integrating responsible health and sex choices.
Perry has brought an interesting opportunity to have more discussion between parents and children concerning safe sex and, god forbid, healthy lifestyle choices.
It’s unfathomable how this issue could be any more unnecessarily dramatic.
The positive effects of the vaccine so far have been overwhelming, with a recent study by the National Cancer Institute concluded that those who received the new HPV vaccine in an appropriate manner had a 90 percent chance of avoiding certain strains of cancer. And the procedure for the HPV vaccine is hardly reminiscent of a forced injection upon innocent little girls.
How is having a 90 percent chance of avoiding cancer a bad thing? As a female who has received the vaccine, I feel all methods of preventing cancer and certain STDs should be encouraged, especially if the vaccine is as reputable as Gardasil has proven to be.
We must not have a narrow-minded, pessimistic view of mandates. In some cases, such as this one, the potential benefits of that which is being required outweigh any negative connotations of the word “mandate.”
Mellissa Linton is a sophomore majoring in English. Her counterpoint runs Fridays.
Click here to read a different viewpoint.
Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that the HPV vaccine would only be effective for females before they became sexually active, according to the CDC. In fact, the CDC only recommends that females receive the vaccine before becoming sexually active, but does encourage receiving the vaccine after becoming sexually active. Read more here.
Great article as a mother of a 10.and 12 year old girls I agree that all girls should have this vaccine to prevent future health issues. mothers stop beeing narow minded think about the harm and the pain that your girls would go through if they would to be diagnose with HPV. very good Article Mrs. Linton
Great article. As a mom I agree that all girls should be vaccinated to prevent a potential disease. If other vaccines are required why shouldn’t this one?
Hmm, it seems the English majors at USC have a better grasp on vaccine science and political policy than the Political Science majors. Well written article, Ms. Linton.