The Right-to-Cancer folks

[Lanya]

  The Right-to-Cancer movement
Posted by Mark Kleiman

Not long ago, Jane Galt wanted to know why the anti-anti-abortion folks think that their anti-abortion opponents are anti-feminist and hostile to sex. Now Jane wants to know why anyone would oppose mandatory vaccination against the Human Papilloma Virus, a virus associated with cervical cancer.

Since Jane is one of my favorite sort-of-libertarian bloggers, nothing pleases me more than the opportunity to answer her questions: HPV vaccination is controversial largely because much of the "Right-to-Life" movement hates it, just as they hate anything that might make sex less dangerous. The National Pro-Life Action Center thinks it's a plot by "agents of the culture of death." The American Life League, "the world's largest pro-life organization," proposes that we shut down all Planned Parenthood offices instead. Human Life International calls the HPV vaccine a "chemical condom." (And of course if you're "pro-life" you must be anti-condom.)

Now since opposing what's in effect a cancer vaccine is pretty dumb politically, some of the "pro-life" groups, including the Family Research Center and Focus on the Family, reversed their opposition to FDA approval of the drug: of course, after it had been approved. Now they're just fighting mandatory vaccination.

To be fair, not all anti-abortion groups oppose HPV vaccination; the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, for example supports it. But (except for a few anti-vaccination fanatics and the usual libertarian suspects) virtually everyone opposed to HPV vaccination comes from the "Right-to-Life" (or, in this case "Right-to-Cancer") camp.

I'm happy to stop calling the "pro-lifers" anti-sex when they start acting as if they preferred saving lives to preventing sex.


Footnote As Reason Hit & Run admits, the "mandate" in "mandatory vaccination" would in this case be a default setting, not an actual mandate. And of course the "herd immunity" effect makes everyone who isn't vaccinated a threat to everyone else, especially for a disease where vaccination is imperfect (and which can be spread without sexual contact). But that doesn't matter; the Reason crew is fully as fanatical as the most extreme "pro-lifers," so for them avoiding the "stench of corporate welfare" and the "smell of social engineering" is more important than avoiding needless deaths. One thing Jesse Walker doesn't bother to notice: if the HPV vaccine is given by "opt-in" rather than "opt-out," parents who "opt-in" wind up more or less expressing the opinion that they expect their daughters to be sexually active, which many of them may be reluctant to do.

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/health_care_/2007/02/the_righttocancer_movement.php

[Amianthus]

Since Jane is one of my favorite sort-of-libertarian bloggers, nothing pleases me more than the opportunity to answer her questions: HPV vaccination is controversial largely because much of the "Right-to-Life" movement hates it, just as they hate anything that might make sex less dangerous.

Piffle.

I have three objections to making the vaccine mandatory, and none of the three involve sex. So this person is an idiot.

[Plane]

HPV vaccination is controversial largely because much of the "Right-to-Life" movement hates it, just as they hate anything that might make sex less dangerous.

A blatant lie.

[Henny]

This is just silliness. Even to the most religious people, this should be acceptable.

Imagine the scenario. One guy makes one "mistake" and has sex one time... with a girl who has HPV. Then he is "saved," goes back to church and marries a pure and blushing bride. Now the blushing bride has never had the HPV vaccination because she's not at risk, right? But then her saved husband transfers to her and she ends up with cervical cancer.

Maybe the example is a bit over the top, but the point is... HPV destroys lives. Cancer destroys lives. If there is a way to prevent it, why would anyone want to stop it?

[Amianthus]

Maybe the example is a bit over the top, but the point is... HPV destroys lives. Cancer destroys lives. If there is a way to prevent it, why would anyone want to stop it?

Why should it be mandatory?

The "religious people" are not against the vaccine. They're not against it being developed or used. They are against being forced to vaccinate their children.

[Henny]

Why should it be mandatory?

Why should other vaccines be mandatory? Because they stop the spread of diseases that put people at risk, often of potential death.

If that is the complaint, then perhaps they should use an Libertarian umbrella instead of a religious one.

[Amianthus]

Why should other vaccines be mandatory? Because they stop the spread of diseases that put people at risk, often of potential death.

Good question. Why is the polio vaccine no longer mandatory? After all, people still contract and die from polio. Why is the hepatitis vaccine not mandatory? Last time I checked, hepatitis was still a disease you can contract. Maybe therein you'll find the answer...

If that is the complaint, then perhaps they should use an Libertarian umbrella instead of a religious one.

They are; it is Lanya and the sources she quotes that make it a religious - or Republican - complaint. A quote from Lanya on the subject was "Why do Republicans want women to get cancer?"

And she stood behind the quote...

[Universe Prince]

To be fair, not all anti-abortion groups oppose HPV vaccination; the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, for example supports it. But (except for a few anti-vaccination fanatics and the usual libertarian suspects) virtually everyone opposed to HPV vaccination comes from the "Right-to-Life" (or, in this case "Right-to-Cancer") camp.

I am curious as to who these people are who oppose HPV vaccination. From what I can gather, no one is opposing it. Some people are opposing being forced to have their daughters get it. What is amazing to me is that many of the people who insist that a woman's body is hers and she has a right to say what happens to it are now insisting that people who want the liberty to choose for themselves are nutcases supporting a "Right-to-Cancer". (Of course, on the other hand, many of the folks who oppose a woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion now argue they should be allowed to choose.) Seems to me if a girl can choose for herself, without parental notification or consent, to have an abortion, then she ought to be able to decide for herself whether or not to get the vaccine. her body is still hers in both cases, is it not? Or does a person's body only belong to herself for certain health choices and not others?

I'm happy to stop calling the "pro-lifers" anti-sex when they start acting as if they preferred saving lives to preventing sex.

Ah yes, the old "if they're pro-life, then they must be Christian fundamentalist anti-sex wackos" bit. Pooh yi. There are pro-life atheists and pro-life Pagans. The Christians might be the loudest voices, but they are not the only ones, and Mr. Kleiman would do well read up on them.

Footnote As Reason Hit & Run admits, the "mandate" in "mandatory vaccination" would in this case be a default setting, not an actual mandate. And of course the "herd immunity" effect makes everyone who isn't vaccinated a threat to everyone else, especially for a disease where vaccination is imperfect (and which can be spread without sexual contact). But that doesn't matter; the Reason crew is fully as fanatical as the most extreme "pro-lifers," so for them avoiding the "stench of corporate welfare" and the "smell of social engineering" is more important than avoiding needless deaths.

The Reason crew is fully as fanatical as the most extreme "pro-lifers"? What? The same Reason crew that criticized the FDA for needlessly delaying the Plan B drug? Fanatical? Mr. Kleiman is the one starting to sound fanatical. Apparently, opposing his opinion is tantamount to heresy. Something Mr. Kleiman seems to have ignored are the cautionary statements coming from doctors. The Baltimore Sun reports Dr. Martin Myers, director of the National Network for Immunization Information, as saying "It's not that I'm not wildly enthusiastic about this vaccine. I am. But many of us are concerned a mandate may be premature, and it's important for people to realize that this isn't as clear-cut as with some previous vaccines." And, "It's not the vaccine community pushing for this." So who is pushing for this? Merck, the company that makes the vaccine. They stand to make several truckloads of money if the vaccine is made mandatory. I am left wondering where the "evil, greedy pharmaceutical companies" protesters are.

[_JS]

Good question. Why is the polio vaccine no longer mandatory? After all, people still contract and die from polio. Why is the hepatitis vaccine not mandatory? Last time I checked, hepatitis was still a disease you can contract. Maybe therein you'll find the answer...

As a matter of fact both the Polio and Hepatitis B vaccines are required for entry into the school systems in the State of Tennessee. I'm guessing the same is true for quite a few other states as well. Link

I wonder how many people who vehemently oppose vaccinations have children.

[Amianthus]

As a matter of fact both the Polio and Hepatitis B vaccines are required for entry into the school systems in the State of Tennessee.

Why don't they require the Hep A vaccine? After all, Hep A can kill you.

[sirs]

I wonder what happened to that "pro-choice" party?  Apparently it's only pro-choice when it's choices they deem appropriate.  Otherwise, it's the pro-you'll do what we say, because we know better" party

 

[_JS]

Why don't they require the Hep A vaccine? After all, Hep A can kill you.

Hepatitis A has a very low mortality rate and only presents itself in an acute stage, not a chronic form (unlike its nastier cousin). In fact, some people who contract it never even know they have it. Also, it is generally prevented through good hygeine and avoiding squalid living conditions (something more difficult to do in third world nations).

Quite frankly, it doesn't pose a public health concern.

I wonder what happened to that "pro-choice" party?  Apparently it's only pro-choice when it's choices they deem appropriate.  Otherwise, it's the pro-you'll do what we say, because we know better" party

Probably for the same reasons that the "pro-life" party supports the death penalty, hawkish policies on warfare, and an abortion policy that allows for abortion in certain cases.

Politics is not a game for those who have humility and refuse to engage in hypocritical thinking.

[BT]

In the end, this isssue like so many others, is all about control.

And in the end it is about everything else than what it is.

It's a women's issue, it's a religious issue, it's a rights issue, it's a political issue. Pick a side, stand and fight.

Make it all about confrontation. Make it all about you.

Just don' let it be a medical issue.

That's too simple.

[sirs]

I wonder what happened to that "pro-choice" party?  Apparently it's only pro-choice when it's choices they deem appropriate.  Otherwise, it's the pro-you'll do what we say, because we know better" party

Probably for the same reasons that the "pro-life" party supports the death penalty, hawkish policies on warfare, and an abortion policy that allows for abortion in certain cases. Politics is not a game for those who have humility and refuse to engage in hypocritical thinking.

Ask me for specifics, vs trying to generalize me Js.  Might want to address my point as well, posed in the above query

[_JS]

Ask me for specifics, vs trying to generalize me Js.  Might want to address my point as well, posed in the above query

I didn't generalize you at all Sirs. You made a point about a political party and I responded in kind. My response was a generalization of the Republican Party, but it was parallel to your original post which was a generalization of the Democratic Party.

My response was really a point about the inane concept of disengenuously attempting to pretend that every Democratic stance is built upon the notion of "pro-choice" by pointing out that not every Republican stance is built upon the notion of "pro-life."

In essence I believe this issue comes down to common sense over the concerns of public health. Which I thought I pointed out well when discussing the vaccines that are already mandatory in my state.