Decius wrote:

I was refering to your specific comment about the "nanny state." I'm simply pointing out that general appeals to the concept of freedom from overbearing regulation that could be applied to any law in any context are not persuasive with regard to the difference between virus A and virus B.

I don't follow you.

There is no way to enforce that, but we do have sex education.

If there was a way to "enforce" the prevention of teen pregnancy, would you find it prudent to do so as a prerequisite to attend public school? You could give kids birth control shots as well as STD shots.

If you're arguement is that your choice in who you have sex with should mean that the government has no business dealing with STDs as a public health problem, then by inferrence that fact that you get to choose where you eat means that the government has no business dealing with the cleanliness of restaurants in order to protect public health. I don't agree with either conclusion. Perhaps you agree with both?

I have already established that I am not completely against public health management. See my statements about MMR.

Name a disease that can be managed through vaccination and impacts a significant percentage of the population that we do not manage as a public health problem. In my opinion the demarcation line is where we can.

Yours differs from mine significantly then. Take measles for example. It is so infectious that you can have an outbreak situation on your hands in no time. But right now, it does NOT impact a significant percentage of the population.

I believe that we should manage diseases that are communicable by common methods of public contact. Diseases that can become an outbreak that overwhelm the community and the hospitals of the community. Sorry, I am not sold on STDs being anywhere close in importance. STDs simply do not affect public health in the same manner that the ones we currently vaccinate for do.

I presume that you also think that health insurance should not cover menapause, aging effects, puberty, or any other predictable life events. Whatever, I don't agree. People use health insurance as a general way of paying for health expenses because it allows them to amortize expenses over time as well as among society.

Your presumption is inane. Puberty, aging, and menopause are part of living. Of course insurance should cover them.

My premise is that I do not believe the vaccination of sixth graders for STDs should be part of a public health program. Keep that in mind. Our debate is wandering across many fractured points, mostly as a result of both of us trying to explore the other's ideology. That is not a bad thing, it is just the nature of debate. It has a side effect of removing focus from the main tenant of the debate though.

So, in your mind, if I have sex with someone, and it turns out they had an STD, but neither of us knew it, thats not an accident, thats the inevitable result of my actions. But If I'm riding a bike and I fall, thats an accident, not the result of participating in am inherently dangerous activity. I don't understand. I think you have a hangup about sex. You wish for the responsibility that people bear for their actions if they have sex and something unwanted happens to exceed the responsibility they bear if they engage in other risky activities and something unwanted happens.

So you believe sex is inherently a dangerous activity? I think I see why you believe STD vaccinations are so important to give to sixth graders now.

I don't see sex or riding a bicycle as inherently dangerous. With proper education and precautions, you can mitigate any risks that are presented. That doesn't mean an accident won't happen in either case, but your odds are improved if you approach either activity with safety in mind.

In the case of riding a bicycle, you can also choose to not wear a helmet, dart out in front of cars, jump off ramps, and go off road in the woods. You increase your risk of an accident by doing any of these.

Likewise, you increase your risk of contracting an STD if you choose multiple sexual partners and choose partners that are more likely to be infected. Someone is more likely to be infected if they have had many prior sex partners. Also, use of a condom, while not failsafe, does help reduce risk.

That is not morality or a sexual hangup. That is a fact. It's even what the CDC recommends for reducing your risk to HPV. Do you believe that the CDC has a "hangup about sex?"

In the same manner that I don't believe the State should provide safety equipment for bicycle riders, I don't believe the State should provide vaccinations for STDs. What it should provide is proper education and guidance.

Because you live in a society with other people, and if those people are stupid, your society becomes poor, and your life will suck as a result.

I live in a society with other people that choose to have children. Let them pay for their kids' educations, not me. When I have a kid that needs to be educated, I'll pay for it then. I do understand the nuances of this debate, such as capital spending required for building schools and amortizing the debt over time. I realize you can't get out completely. But where the direct revenue required for operational costs can be removed from my tax bill, I say let me OUT until I need such service.

Decuis wrote:

Why do you get angry about the idea that you're funding social insitutions that occaisonally help people?

The first time I heard about this, which was oh, two or three days ago when I read it on Drudge Report, my jaw dropped. I thought, what the hell is going on? This is an outrage!

Outrages are what partisan news sources are for, after all!

You are being disingenuous with your selective quoting. I answered your loaded question with two paragraphs if you care to read them.

Hijexx wrote:

It depends on what the "help" is. I don't have a problem helping rape victims, victims of famine, floods, natural disasters, certain types of communicable diseases that could not generally have been prevented (like MMR.) I won't list the whole thing, but I understand the reason behind some social institutions being funded with my tax dollars. It's the classic debate about who pays for R&D on making life better for everyone, it's a big can of worms, and I'm not going there, suffice to say I am not against paying some debts to society.

But just as you do not find my insistance compelling, I am yet to be convinced that sixth graders should be REQUIRED to be vaccinated for STDs as a prerequisite to attending public schools. If I discover evidence that it is a public health crisis that is spreading like wildfire in schools and adversely affecting the learning experience of many children, I might change my mind. I express sincere doubt that will ever be the case though.

It should be clear that I am not angry I fund social institutions. I can only assume your barb about "partisan news" was for comedic effect and not a contribution to the debate at hand.

I've never counter argued this possibility. I'm discussing the general case of STD management and not the specific case. I don't have enough data on the economic and medical impacts of this to have a specific opinion, nor do I have time to research it. I simply do not see it as obviously wrong on it's face.

I was positing it as a general observation, not a rebuttal of any of your points. I recommend at least considering the possibility that there is more to this Executive Order than just caring about the wellbeing of "the children."

We have mostly debated on the terms of STD vaccination, specific to HPV. I do not mind debating on those terms because that is what the vaccine is specifically for. If anything, debating it on terms of STD lends more credence to the pro-vaccination side of the debate because HPV has high rates of infection. Even so, keep in mind that most HPV is warded off by the immune system.

It bears reminding that this vaccine is not being sold to the public as an STD vaccine. It is being marketed and sold as a cure for cervical cancer.

Cervical cancer is on the decline thanks to screening techniques. Incidence rate in Texas is trending downward overall. In 2004, 82 percent of Texas women 18 and older reported having a pap smear in the last three years. Why is it all of a sudden a priority to fight it? The Governor of the second most populous state in the US issued an Executive Order that requires sixth grade girls to be vaccinated before they can attend public school. For what reason?

Your own definition of the demarcation of what is and what is not a public health crisis would fail to be crossed by the incidence rate of cervical cancer in girls aged 11 to 18. This is what I mean when I state that there is no public health crisis that requires these measures.

I do not have granular numbers that account for the specific sets of data, but what I could briefly find via Google is the following:

Estimated Female Texas Population for 2006: 11734914

Texas Cancer Registry Cervical Cancer Estimates for 2006: 1169 new cases, 391 deaths.

I could find no age specific data, but even if you run the numbers with no regard to age, they are statistically insignificant:

0.0009% of the female population had new cases of cervical cancer in 2006.
0.0003% of the female population died from cervical cancer in 2006.

If you think I am misreading these numbers, please tell me in what way. It's pretty obvious to me that the house is not burning down. Year over year incidence RATES are trending DOWN as well.

I am going to pull out the slippery slope arguement now. You can either put this in the "valid" bucket or the "fallacious" bucket, your choice. I admit it is just conjecture.

This issue is ultimately about reproductive health. If you start to let the State control the destiny of reproductive health like this, what comes next?

Here's the now, with respect to STDs:

"We try to educate these kids about sex, but wow, look at those HPV rates. Education isn't working, break out the STD vaccinations!"

Here's the tomorrow:

"We try to educate these kids about teen pregnancy, but wow, look at those teen pregnancy rates. Education isn't working, break out the birth control shots!"

Here's a distant future:

"We try to educate these proles about over population, but wow, look at those birth rates. Our one child policy isn't working, break out the sterilization shots!"

This case in Texas is a bellwether event. Whatever your personal feelings are about our debate, I suggest paying closer attention to what happens with it, as well as consider other potential motivations behind Governor Perry's edict. It really doesn't bode well in my mind when someone rules by edict rather than through the People. My red flag goes off.

RE: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls