HPV Vaccine Gardasil was licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration licensed in June 2006, prevent infection from four human papillomavirus (HPV) types, two of which case cervical cancer (Cox, Cox, Sturm, & Zimet, 29). Gardasil was prepared by Merck pharmaceutical company. The company started its campaign to make Gardasil mandatory after the introduction of the vaccine. "Papillomaviruses (PVs) make up a vast family that is comprised of hundreds of viruses that affect the epithelia in humans and animals and that can cause benign lesions known as warts or papillomas, which can occasionally progress to cancer. Cancer of the uterine is caused by HPV, primary types 16 and 18, as well as a dozen other "high risk" HPV types which infect the genital mucosa" (Campo & Roden, p.1,214). The current essay is about the opposition and support of the vaccine Gardasil. The author supports to make this vaccine mandatory and give reasons in support of this vaccine.
During its campaign Merck found great support from women particular in government institutions, a nationwide, bipartisan association of women state legislators, which is established to guide the women policy makers as an educational and networking resource (Drug Week 2006, para. 6). Though the women in government also set back for these campaigns because during the early 2007, the popular media started coverage of the connection, exposing that Merck had "funneled money through Women in Government" to vestibule legislators of government (Associated Press 2007, para. 7; Gold 2007). It was also revealed that a significant executive belonging to the vaccine department of the Merck had a seat in the business council for Women in Government (Associated Press 2007).
Although there are reported negative effects and some deaths due to which the vaccine was not opposed yet I support to make it mandatory. The vaccine has been shown to be extremely effectual, having sturdy antibody responses as well as higher protection rates against HPV infection and cervical disease. Long-standing effectiveness is still acknowledged, but it is evident from primary research that there is possibility of its becoming excellent. If there is a requirement of booster doses of this vaccine in future it will be a little price to pay to prevent from a critical and life-threatening disease (Kives, 2010). "The vaccine is not only efficacious but also safe; infrequent serious adverse events and deaths have been reported after vaccination, but data to date have not causally linked these to the vaccine" (Campo & Roden, 2010, p.1216). Some of the common complaints or side effects were recorded as staining, itching, redness, inflammation or softness near the region the shot is given. There is also possibility of women to experience faintness, weakness, vomiting, nausea or mild fever. Yet less risk is possible of allergic reaction. The vaccine is administered in a series of three doses, which costs approximately & 375 for all three doses (HPV Vaccine, 2010)
According to Ceballos (2009), "HPV infection is the most common sexually transmitted infection (STI) in the world, and more than 6 million people in United States are newly infected with it every year. Of these newly infected people, 4.6 million are adolescents between the ages of 15 and 24. Two strains of HPV, 16 and 18, account for 70% of all cervical cancer. Each year in the United States, more than 10,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer. Approximately 4,000 of these cancers result in death."
Gardasil vaccine is beneficial for the protection against HPV. A benefit to the vaccination of a large percentage of girls against HPV is the concept of herd immunity. It has been stated by experts that vaccines will work effectively if every ones uptakes them; the law of herd immunity states that the possibility of abolition of a disease can be anticipated if majority of the people use vaccine against a certain virus. By giving vaccination to the children before the age of their sexual activation will help to radically reduce the occurrence of as a minimum some damage for the next generation (Gibbs, 2006).
An opposing view of this issue is presented by viewing the history of cervical screening. Since the introduction of Pap smears nearly 50 years ago as screening for cervical cancer, the United States rates of cases of cervical cancer and resulting deaths lessened by more than 75% (Castle, 367). Thus it is less likely that widespread vaccination will help much to reduce the risk of cervical cancer in the United States. Mostly it is supported that the HPV vaccination is supported due to the fact that there is a need of HPV prevention strategies in the in underserved, unscreened groups of population in the United States as the cervical cancer cases are reported in them in majority (above 60%) among these groups. There is a need to make the HPV vaccine mandatory because there is currently no other preventive technique present against cervical cancer ( Castle, 367). This would in some ways undermine the conclusion that all children need this vaccine, particularly if they have access to health care and regular Pap screenings as recommended.
Another view of this issue explains that organized HPV vaccination combined with screening could potentially prevent most cervical cancer. Vaccinations alone will not prevent cervical cancer unless their efficacy is longer than 15-year; if the duration of efficacy is shorter and efficient boostering is not organized, the onset of the cancer in women is merely postponed (Harper, 594).
Since the Grasil was approved in 2006, much information has been distributed expressing concern about the vaccine's safety and efficacy, as well as the potential impact of vaccination on the sexual behaviors of those who are vaccinated. As a result, many parents have been reluctant to accept recommendation of this vaccination for their children. Some people give explanation for opposing vaccine that vaccination will result in corrupt and bad among adolescent. More believe that parent's authority over their daughter's health care would be usurped. Other point out that cervical cancer will occur in only a fraction of the more than 7.5 million girls and young women estimated to be infected with the virus in this country (Levine, 2007). The young age of adolescents whom are recommended to obtain the vaccine also causes some concern to many. There is a synonymy in describing risk related to HPV infection to the communication related to sexual activity and risk related to it among adolescents. Therefore the opposition to mandatory vaccination programs is not surprising (Brown, Little, & Leydon, 224).
A study conducted in Scotland in 2008 evaluated a cohort of girls eligible for school-based vaccination to determine side effects of the vaccine and the impact on vaccine completion, as well as reasons for non-vaccination. The majority of reasons for non-vaccinaiton were due to non-acceptance and perceived lack of need for the vaccine, and perceived lack of evidence of safety of the vaccine (Ebhohimheh, Hue, Tissington, Oates, & Stark, 2010)
These sentiments were echoed to a degree by a study performed in England in 2005, which accessed the approval of parents and the possible uptake of HPV vaccine uptake within eight secondary schools before the certification of the HPV vaccine in said country. The purpose of the study was to explore the perception of general public about the mandatory vaccination in pre-pubescent adolescents against HPV. The research conceptualized that to link HPV weith cervical cancer will possibility become a stigmatized act which will have a negative impact on uptake of vaccine as well as there is also capacity for creation of anxiety among adolescents and their parents that vaccination could support promiscuity. The findings of the study revealed that if people are told that HPV vaccine is safe then there is a potential of 80% vaccine uptake…