BNet's Jim Edwards Stirs The Pot -- On "Secret" HPV Vaccine Proposal -- In NY Senate

I like Jim -- I just think he's missed the mark, with this, of his, this morning. I think a little contrast will help make my positions clearer, here -- for Jim.

Let me sum up my (contrast) position -- "Gardasil is not a condom." I support condoms, even "secret" free condoms -- for people under 18. I even support making them available (again, for free) in the Health Clerk's office, in the public schools. Why? No one has shown a serious side-effect risk from condom use -- other than (agruably, at least) increased sexual activity. The opposite is true of the Gardasil vaccine. I think it is (within obvious limits) a good vaccine -- it just should not be mandated, and certainly not given in secret, to teenagers. [BTW, condoms have been shown to prevent the transmission of HPV. Imagine that.]

In any event, Jim writes:

. . . .I disagree [with Condor]. No one likes the idea of their kids having sex. But the notion that kids will refrain from sex because they won’t want doctors to tell their parents if they get HPV is ridiculous. Requiring parental consent for a child who wants to protect him or herself from an STD is a good way to render such protection ineffective. Kids have privacy rights too. They should be able to talk with their doctors without their parents if they want to. . . .

I absolutely agree that kids should talk with doctors -- with or without parents, but that is not what this bill is after. This bill is about vaccinating kids in secret. That is a bridge too far.

My aim -- in highlighting the manifold infirmities of this New York bill -- was not to suggest, in any fashion, that kids will stop having sex (even to avoid HPV, or any other STD, for that matter), or to avoid telling their parents they are being "treated" -- for any STD.

As Jim well knows, strictly speaking, a vaccine doesn't treat a disease. That is the crux of my quarrel. For kids who are not having sex -- and there are some (perhaps many) -- in New York, the Gardasil vaccine presents a real risk of side effects, for absolutely no benefit. If nothing else, that is a decision parents should make with their minor children -- not have children making that decision, alone, in secret. It should be an elective vaccine. Casual contact cannot spread HPV. That is scientific fact.

The New York bills treat the Gardasil HPV vaccine as identical to any other post-facto treatment for an already existing STD. The Gardasil vaccine is no such thing. In fact, it only prevents two strains, of a potential 18.

So, Jim misunderstands my objection -- I wholly endorse "treatment" -- even secret treatment -- for minors' STDs. I do not endorse mandatory Gardasil vaccinations, for girls (or boys). It is no treatment -- it is, at best, arguable prevention, of only two types of HPV virus, and taking it does transfer a real, measurable risk.

Parents should be allowed to decide, with their children, in each case, whether anyone under 18 should receive it.


Okay -- whew! -- here endeth my sermon.