HPV Vaccine Mandates, Autonomy, and Adolescent Rights
This paper examines a bioethics scenario in which a thirteen-year-old girl is required to receive the HPV vaccine as a condition of school enrollment. Drawing on the moral principle of autonomy, CDC guidance on HPV transmission, and Ronald Munson's bioethics framework, the paper presents arguments on both sides of mandatory vaccination: protecting adolescents from a common sexually transmitted virus linked to cervical cancer versus the ethical violation of compelling a minor to undergo a medical procedure without her meaningful consent. The paper ultimately argues that every individual possesses a moral right to bodily autonomy, and that adolescent girls should be fully informed of risks and benefits before any vaccination decision is made.
- Introduction: The Mandatory HPV Vaccine Dilemma: Case scenario and central moral question introduced
- Background on HPV and the Case for Mandatory Vaccination: Public health rationale and protective arguments examined
- Arguments Against Mandatory HPV Vaccination: Risks, coercion, and insufficient research critiqued
- Autonomy, Informed Consent, and a Personal Position: Author defends right to informed individual choice
- References: CDC, Stanford Encyclopedia, and Munson cited
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It presents both sides of the mandatory vaccination debate before clearly stating a personal position, giving the argument a balanced structure.
- It anchors abstract ethical claims (autonomy, moral rights) to a concrete case scenario, making the philosophical content accessible.
- It connects medical evidence from the CDC with philosophical reasoning from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, demonstrating cross-disciplinary engagement.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses a structured ethical analysis common in applied bioethics: presenting a real-world dilemma, identifying the central moral question (whose interests take precedence?), canvassing competing positions with supporting evidence, and then defending a reasoned personal stance grounded in the principle of autonomy. This mirrors the format of a classical bioethics case study essay.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by introducing the case scenario and its central moral tension. The second section provides background on HPV and the public-health rationale for early vaccination. The third section presents counterarguments focused on bodily rights, insufficient research, and coercion. The fourth section states the author's position — that autonomy must prevail and girls should receive full information before any decision is imposed on them. A brief references section closes the paper.
Introduction: The Mandatory HPV Vaccine Dilemma
In Decision Scenario number one, a thirteen-year-old girl is about to transfer to a new school in a new state that has a mandated law requiring all adolescent girls to be vaccinated against the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) before being allowed to register for class or begin school. Although vaccination is a condition of enrollment, the girl's father does not want her to receive the vaccine. He believes it is unnecessary because she is not sexually active, and he feels the vaccine has not been researched sufficiently to merit such widespread mandatory use (Munson, p. 103). The central moral issue here is not whether this vaccine condones premarital sex, but rather that the young girl is not being given any voice in a decision that will directly affect her body (Richardson). Whose interest should be valued most? Is anyone allowing the young girl to form an opinion on the matter? Who, in this situation, truly knows what is best for a thirteen-year-old? It is this issue that we shall analyze, and the possible implications shall be examined in turn.
Background on HPV and the Case for Mandatory Vaccination
The Human Papilloma Virus vaccine is a relatively new development. Given HPV's direct link to cervical cancer, the vaccine addresses not only the prevention of a serious illness but also the protection of individuals before any chance of contracting the virus is possible. HPV is a sexually transmitted infection so common that doctors and vaccine producers now recommend that girls as young as 11 or 12 receive the vaccine before any opportunity of exposure arises (CDC).
One argument in favor of mandatory vaccination rests on the protective benefit it confers. By ensuring that adolescent girls receive the HPV vaccine, doctors, parents, and others responsible for a young person's welfare can reduce the likelihood that vaccinated individuals will contract HPV later in life. Although this approach does not give the girls themselves a voice in a decision that directly affects them, it does provide a form of protection against a virus that could eventually cause them serious harm.
Some argue that vaccinating so early is premature; however, the vaccine's protective window of approximately five years corresponds roughly to the average age at which sexual activity begins for teenagers in the United States (CDC). Not every teenager is the same, of course, but if a young woman becomes sexually active later in life without having been vaccinated, she risks exposure to the virus from a partner who may have been previously exposed — perhaps unknowingly — and who has not been vaccinated either. This creates a cycle of potential transmission that early mandatory vaccination could interrupt. While girls would not be given much choice under a mandate, advocates of this position argue that at thirteen, adolescents are already navigating significant emotional, psychological, and physical changes, and that having a responsible adult make this decision on their behalf may genuinely serve their long-term interests.
Arguments Against Mandatory HPV Vaccination
On the other side of the debate, many hold that no one should have the right to determine what must be done with respect to something as personal as another individual's body (Richardson). The potential risks associated with the vaccine are significant enough that mandating it carries serious ethical problems (CDC). As a relatively new development, requiring the vaccine as a condition of school enrollment is troubling because the system is compelling young girls to receive a medical intervention before the long-term implications are fully understood. No one can be certain of the vaccine's long-term effects, yet girls are being denied the moral and legal right to decide what is best for their own bodies.
If a young girl does not feel comfortable receiving this vaccine, she should not be placed in a position where she must choose between obtaining an education and submitting to a mandated medical procedure that could have harmful long-term consequences. Proponents of this view contend that insufficient research exists to justify a fully mandatory HPV vaccination law, and that if an adolescent girl does not believe the vaccine is right for her, she should retain the right to refuse it.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.