Issue 11: Should Vaccination for HPV Be Mandated

for Teenage Girls?

Yes: HPV being the most common sexually transmitted infection in the
United States Professor joseph E. Balog explained in details why he believes
that compulsory HPV vaccinations for teenage can be justified on moral,
science and public health ground, since HPV vaccination prevents against
cervical cancer professor joseph E. Balog believes that the decision to have
teenagers have the vaccination should be a moral principle for parents and
their children. It might not be of high risks but ignoring the issue might make
it worse for the person that might be infected by it.
No: Judging by the law risks to endangered others by having this
infection Law professor Gail Javitt and Lawrence O. Gostin believed that HPV
vaccine should not be required. I agree with the fact that both parents and
children play an important role in having HPV vaccination mostly when the
child become a teenager there are certain thing that should be introduced to
the kid mostly to teenage girl to help them protect themselves mostly when
they become sexually active. I do believe that we are winning the war on
cancer because whether it is health department or school education they are
making people aware of the disease, and the many ways we can prevent or
protect ourselves against it. I have to say yes and no in my personal opinion
that genetic enhancement an unacceptable use of technology because at a
certain point, scientists could changes or modify mice frogs in laboratories to

undergo their research but at certain instinct it also aspire to remake nature.
We cant tell teens to practice abstinence because of what society has being
projecting and keeps on projecting using media and such. I believe that
moral value and self-consciousness helps or could help the kid to make their
own decision in whether or not they want to protect themselves by using
those safe methods. ...as is advocating for alternative programs such as
abstinence education that are unrealistic and ineffective. (Yes, Joseph Balog
page 205). It is also true that the HPV vaccine is really expense and may
arose questions marks to some people but why not make it to everyone so
that no one will not be able to go through such stress by not be informed by
the existence of the compulsory vaccination of HPV? Mostly when we have
started to know about the long term consequences of an HPV vaccine? And
why make this vaccine so expensive when it actually can prevent cervical
cancer? I just dont understand just because a disease has low incidence rate
of serious harm, does that mean population should not be preventing against
its risks? Others assert that no imminent harm exists. (Yes, Joseph Balog).
On the other hand I also agree with professor Gail about having the HPV
vaccination on minor female because we dont really know the effect of the
vaccine on a long term so reading his part about his opinion made me a little
skeptical even though I believe that it is better to be safe than sorry. It is true
that without more data about the vaccine some people might not want the
compulsory vaccination to be amended and that will totally make it

understandable too. The duration of HPV vaccine-induced immunity is

unclear. (No, Gail Javitt, page 208).