Andrew Sullivan is apparently upset that some "theoconservatives" oppose making the new human papillomavirus vaccine mandatory.
What I find fascinating is that the issue isn't whether or not it should be available but whether or not it should be required. A lot of people are rightly concerned about forcing a vaccine, the long-term consequences of which are unknown, upon people who might never need it, as the disease is totally dependent on exual behavior. Yet supposedly, it is evil and theocratic to suggest that parents ought to control whether or not their children receive a vaccine for a venereal disease.
Ol' Sully shows his hand, though, when he mentions this quote by Michael Specter:
[Religious conservatives] have even stated that they would feel similarly about an H.I.V. vaccine, if one became available...'With any vaccine for H.I.V., disinhibition' - a medical term for the absence of fear - 'would certainly be a factor, and it is something we will have to pay attention to with a great deal of care.'
What needs to be considered here, of course, is that HIV would be ridiculous as a childhood vaccine. We wouldn't know the long-term side effects for years, and quite frankly, in the developed world only a few small subpopulations (gay males and IV drug users) would need it. It would make no sense to vaccinate anyone else and to expose them to whatever risks are associated with the vaccine.
That is all.
No comments:
Post a Comment