Cervical Cancer Vaccine Ordered For Texans

Is there a high rate of cervical cancer in Texas?

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

Is there a high rate of cervical cancer in Texas?

I would guess the rate to be about the same here as in other states. I have no evidence either way.

0 Replies

I don't see how they can make it compulsory and still attach such a steep price tag to it-maybe that will change.

I'm excited by the research though. I hadn't heard there was a vaccine for this. When I was a young teen, I had two friends who both had older sisters who died of cervical cancer when they were sixteen and seventeen years old. It was horrendous- they both had to have hysterectomies, etc. before the cancer killed them (although they were both DES daughters- so their cancer was caused by a drug their mothers had taken to prevent miscarriage, not by this virus). Still if this can prevent people from facing something like that for whatever reason- I'm all for it (and excited as well that if they've found a vaccine for this cancer inducing virus, maybe vaccines for others are not so far behind).

Thanks for posting this Edgar. I'm going to look into it for my daughter.

0 Replies

Quote:

Cervical cancer once was the leading cause of death for women in the United States. However, during the past 4 decades, incidence and mortality (the number of deaths each year) from cervical cancer have declined significantly, primarily because of the widespread use of the Papanicolaou (Pap) test to detect cervical abnormalities. 1 According to the U.S. Cancer Statistics: 2002 Incidence and Mortality Report, more than 12,000 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer in 2002, and nearly 4,000 women died from the disease that same year. 2 It is estimated that more than $2 billion per year is spent in the United States on the treatment of cervical cancer. 3

Recent trends suggest that cervical cancer incidence and mortality continue to decrease significantly overall, and for women in every racial and ethnic population. However, rates are considerably higher among Hispanic and African-American women. 2

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/

0 Replies

I'm flabbergasted that Perry would do this.

Pleased, but flabbergasted.

0 Replies

Wow!

The price tag is a concern, as well as the fact that Merck was pushing for it. The vaccine itself and use of it is great news, though.

0 Replies

Lawmakers are considering similar requirements in at least 20 other states, including Michigan, California, Oklahoma and New Jersey, according to Women in Government a Washington-based organization that has campaigned for state laws to mandate the vaccine.
(via Bloomberg)

0 Replies

A drug company pushing for it does not mean that it is a bad idea.

It looks to me as if Perry put the health of these young girls ahead of political concerns. Good on him!

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Wow!

The price tag is a concern, ... .

It costs about the double here in Europe, but you get it (on prescription) and nearly all health insurance companies pay it.

In today's Chicago Tribune:

Cost, insurance issues limit use of cancer vaccine

Quote:

Girls jumping rope chant "one less, one less," in TV commercials for the new cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil, vowing they will be one less cancer patient.

But in the real world, Gardasil is getting used less than doctors would like. Pediatricians and gynecologists across the nation are refusing to stock Gardasil because of its $360 price for the three doses required and "totally inadequate" reimbursement from most insurers.

Pediatricians, in particular, are rebelling, fed up after years of declining insurance reimbursement for vaccines, an explosion of new vaccines and fast-escalating vaccine prices.

Many practices must tie up $50,000 or more in vaccine inventory, insure the vaccines and spend lots of time on inventory management. They also must absorb the cost of broken or wasted vials, and they say that's not possible with most insurers reimbursing at just $2 to $15 over the $120 per dose charged by Gardasil's developer, Merck & Co.

... ... ...

source: Chicago Tribune, 04.02.07, page A5

0 Replies

Personally, if I were a mother of a young girl, I would want her to have the vaccine. I am appalled though, that the vaccine is being mandated as compulsory.

I can see the rationale for other vaccinations for diseases that are virulently communicable. That IS a public health issue. If someone has whooping cough, and coughs in public, innocent people can be affected.

It is not the same with cervical cancer. One could argue that it IS communcable through sex. But unlike whooping cough, people have to choose to have unprotected sex to spread the disease. In addition, only a small percentage of people who have the virus, eventually contract cervical cancer.

I see this as a partnership between the drug company, who stands to gain plenty from this law, and the government, and I find the entire issue detestable. Offer the vaccine, educate people about it, but don't mandate it.

0 Replies

We don't have compulsory vaccination here.
All is done on an "advised" basis - cervical cancer vaccination isn't on that list yet (otherwise you would get it totally without charge).

0 Replies

I just thought of one exception, where I would favor mandated vaccination. I think the exception would be a young girl who receives her health insurance through government funding (Medicaid, or MediCal)

In that case, the taxpayers are paying for the girl's health insurance. She would still have a choice, but the vaccination would be the prerequisite for staying on Medicaid.

It is to our benefit that girls who are on Medicaid are vaccinated so that later on, if a girl contracts cervical cancer, the government (that means all of us) won't have to bear the burden of the costs of the cervical cancer treatment.

0 Replies

When I was a child, a man volunteered to give me and my brothers free haircuts- -an act of charity, because we were dirt poor- -My two years younger brother went first. As the barber worked on my head, the brother went and viewed himself in the mirror. "I like my haircut," he said, with a happy smile. Remember, we were very young. "I don't know how I like mine, yet," I said. The barber reminded me we were getting charity, and I should be too grateful to voice an opinion. Why did I not deserve to react the same way a child from a wealthy family would have done? By the same token, why should a girl receiving help from the government not be allowed to respond like a full member of society?

0 Replies

edgarblythe- You are comparing apples with potatoes. In your case, the barber was technically correct, but was cruel to have said what he did to you. I believe that if you give something out of the goodness of your heart, it should be given unconditionally.

On the other hand, the person who receives, should be grateful, and not critical. But you were a kid, so I think that the barber was out of line. I think that it is very telling that you remember this incident, which happened so many years ago.

Quote:

By the same token, why should a girl receiving help from the government not be allowed to respond like a full member of society?

I think that it is illuminating to see how you couched your question. I think that you have answered it yourself. A person who is receiving government assistance is not a contributing member of society, but is living off the largesse of people who are.

0 Replies

Well, would should we do .... getting a lot of vaccacinations and medical examination totally free of charge from the (county/city) health department (or - from there delegated - from our family doctor)? :wink:

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

A drug company pushing for it does not mean that it is a bad idea.

Exactly my idea DrewDad.

While listening to NPR the other day on just this topic, someone expressed this concern of "the drug companies making a buck off of this"

Well, they ARE a business, aren't they? Regardless of someones feelings about the drug industry, they do, as a byproduct of making a profit, produce life saving drugs once in a while.

Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Imagine, thousands of women who will NOT die, because of $360 well spent.

0 Replies

imo it does cost society money if a person gets sick - whether that person has private insurance , government insurance or even no insurance at all .

the $360 - which will likely be reduced as more vaccine is being produced - sems a small price considering the possible suffering a person might have if the vaccination were not done .

i think it would be foolish to look at the $360 in isolation , but one needs to look at it in the overall health costs - and even in the overall context of a healthier population .
hbg

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

edgarblythe- You are comparing apples with potatoes. In your case, the barber was technically correct, but was cruel to have said what he did to you. I believe that if you give something out of the goodness of your heart, it should be given unconditionally.

On the other hand, the person who receives, should be grateful, and not critical. But you were a kid, so I think that the barber was out of line. I think that it is very telling that you remember this incident, which happened so many years ago.

Quote:
By the same token, why should a girl receiving help from the government not be allowed to respond like a full member of society?

I think that it is illuminating to see how you couched your question. I think that you have answered it yourself. A person who is receiving government assistance is not a contributing member of society, but is living off the largesse of people who are.

The barber was full of ****. Any time I give something away, I make sure it's something the person wants before turning loose. The barber didn't ask anybody what they like, just started cutting. I was stuck with whatever he wanted to do, just because I was a kid. I knew then, as I still know, that the giver has obligations, too.

You don't force people without resources to accept such a vaccine, especially one that was only tested for four years. The ultimate outcome of it is not clearly known.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:
edgarblythe- You are comparing apples with potatoes. In your case, the barber was technically correct, but was cruel to have said what he did to you. I believe that if you give something out of the goodness of your heart, it should be given unconditionally.

On the other hand, the person who receives, should be grateful, and not critical. But you were a kid, so I think that the barber was out of line. I think that it is very telling that you remember this incident, which happened so many years ago.

Quote:
By the same token, why should a girl receiving help from the government not be allowed to respond like a full member of society?

I think that it is illuminating to see how you couched your question. I think that you have answered it yourself. A person who is receiving government assistance is not a contributing member of society, but is living off the largesse of people who are.

The barber was full of ****. Any time I give something away, I make sure it's something the person wants before turning loose. The barber didn't ask anybody what they like, just started cutting. I was stuck with whatever he wanted to do, just because I was a kid. I knew then, as I still know, that the giver has obligations, too.

You don't force people without resources to accept such a vaccine, especially one that was only tested for four years. The ultimate outcome of it is not clearly known.

And herein lies a defining difference in thought between one ideological segment of the population and the other.

Edgar is representative of the school of though that holds that requiring anything of those who rely upon society for their well being is compulsion. This is akin to Al Sharpton's argument that requiring beneficiaries of public housing to spend some time policing their community is tantamount to slavery.

The reality is that no one is forced to accept public assistance. Doing so is strictly voluntary. Public assistance is a a product of the will of society. If the will of society is to place conditions upon this assistance, how is that wrong?

It seems that people like Edgar believe that prosperity is at best a product of luck, and at worst a product of nepotism, racism and a totally uneven playing field.

A person receiving help from the government is not compelled to act any differently than persons who do not receive such help. They are free to reject the conditions with the assistance.

Over and over again it has been shown that people appreciate what they earn far more than what they are given.

It helps no one to suggest that they can create the conditions surrounding the charity they receive.

0 Replies

Cervical Cancer Vaccine Ordered For Texans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know