With todays children being required to receive vaccinations for other serious diseases including measles, mumps, influenza and polio, parents around the country are sighing with relief at the idea of their daughters being somewhat protected from such a serious and common sexually transmitted disease which eventually becomes a form of cervical cancer. Other parents are breathing heavy as they verbally protest the new program, which has become a parental-consented requirement in many areas of Canada, which is working to immunize as many eighth grade girls as possible.
According to published news resources including the Globe and Mail, some of these parents feel the vaccine was released too soon with not enough prospective research involved, such as the possibility of what future side effects could happen to the girls who become immunized. They believe there is no urgent need for the vaccine, thus possibly allowing researchers more time to continue working on it, as it is a common belief that there is no actual HPV epidemic in the country (CMA journal 2007). Others are more concerned with the financial side of the topic. They stress facts like how the government spent three-hundred million dollars releasing the new vaccine into the provinces (CMA journal, 2007) and how parents are being charged upwards from four hundred dollars for the three vaccinating doses if their child is another age or waited to receive the needles.
Another concern on the minds of these parents is the idea that their daughters will become sexually active sooner with this new form of protection. Tanya Johnson, a mother of one daughter in Etobicoke told national newspaper The Globe and Mail; A little bit of me feels like it sends the message that its okay to be sexually active. (Globe and Mail, 2007)
In their journal via the entry titled Human Papillomavirus, Vaccines and Womens Health: Questions and Cautions, the Canadian Medical Association voices its concern. Through thorough research and a clever writing style, they ask that with this vaccine being seen as a somewhat impermeable safety net for girls, will the need for practicing safe sex, positive habits and getting Pap tests continue to be stressed on girls and women during and after vaccination? Can other vaccinations or health factors such as smoking and nutrition in any way effect the potency or effectiveness of the vaccine? What could and what can our government do to make this costly vaccination program one of great societal priority and success?
I am taking a neutral position regarding this controversial topic. Although I am not ready to rush out and spend four hundred dollars to have myself vaccinated, for reasons including the question of future side effects and my lack of four hundred dollars to freely spend, I do not agree with the idea of some parents, including those who are without children, complaining about a lack of research just because they had not heard much about Gardasil before this vaccine came into the media spotlight. Research towards what would eventually become the Gardasil vaccine began in 1991 when a copycat disease was created by Ian Fraser and Jian Zhou.
They tested the clone disease against human immune systems and the disease was unsuccessful in dominating and infecting the system. The research was continued and completed, even after Zhous death in 1999 (Gardasil, 2007). I do not see my personal lack of HPV immunization as an example of irresponsibility since there are other ways to detect and prevent such a disease (papanicolaou screenings, including high amounts of various vitamins and fish oil in ones diet and condom use).
I have the tendency to think that a functionalist would think in other terms. The theory of functionalism believes that society is meticulous in staying in an orderly fashion where everything and everyone has a purpose or task (Sociology, 2007). Extreme functionalists believe people must do what they can to follow this way or norm even if it involves making drastic changes, whether or not the changes clash with personal or societal beliefs, which can be compared to the ideas of socialists. Looking at this controversial topic from a macrolevel stance, a functionalist would see this vaccine as a necessary service for the majority of women in the entire country, despite the fact that the vaccine was only tested on a minimal twelve hundred girls over a period of eighteen months (CMA Journal, 2007).
To clash with this, as an activist of free speech and non-profit healthcare, I believe that the infamous Michael Moore would look at this issue from a conflict-like perspective. One point of conflict perspective suggests that actions can be done based on greedy acts, despite how selfless the said action may seem. With the vaccine only being offered for free to a certain portion of the female population, as opposed to being sold to the rest for prices around four hundred dollars by a company known as Merck & Co, Moore could argue that the vaccine could somewhat be a money grab.
He could easily propose that the government, the company and the media has managed to take a somewhat minimal but significant problem and turn it into an enormous and supposed epidemic despite the fact that cervical cancer is not even in the top ten list of causes of cancerous deaths. He could also point out that seventy percent of Canadian women are cleared of their HPV within a year if treated (CMA Journal, 2007), which can potentially make paying four hundred dollars for the vaccine a task of lower priority for those who are not entitled to a free vaccination or those who simply cannot afford such an expensive treatment.
With this controversial topping sweeping the country and both sides having such great arguments, let us hope that the end result will turn out positive and that the government, health care officials and pharmaceutical companies will do what is best for society and the individuals within.
