Cervical Cancer Vaccine Ordered For Texans

I see your point Finn, but I read Edgar's concern as being more about the fact that he (when he was getting his hair cut)was being spoken to and/or treated with less simple human dignity than others who could afford to pay. That may be human nature, and the first instictive response of those who resent having to help people in any way, but it isn't a productive response to the problem if you ever want to see a real internal change (pride) that translates to an external one (work).

I don't think it benefits anyone to treat people who may have to accept charity in order to live, whether it's through their own misdoings and/or laziness, or not, without dignity. Especially not a child.

In the case of this vaccine, hopefully, they'll get nurses who aren't burnt out from dealing with welfare cases in public health clinics to deliver the vaccine to these young girls, so they won't have to feel like cattle being herded through, to accept what is a generous and potentially life-saving gift.

I'm happy (and surprised) they're making it available to everyone. Especially since the incidence of the disease is twice as high in certain populations as in others.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

I see your point Finn, but I read Edgar's concern as being more about the fact that he (when he was getting his hair cut)was being spoken to and/or treated with less simple human dignity than others who could afford to pay. That may be human nature, and the first instictive response of those who resent having to help people in any way, but it isn't a productive response to the problem if you ever want to see a real internal change (pride) that translates to an external one (work).

I don't think it benefits anyone to treat people who may have to accept charity in order to live, whether it's through their own misdoings and/or laziness, or not, without dignity. Especially not a child.

In the case of this vaccine, hopefully, they'll get nurses who aren't burnt out from dealing with welfare cases in public health clinics to deliver the vaccine to these young girls, so they won't have to feel like cattle being herded through, to accept what is a generous and potentially life-saving gift.

I'm happy (and surprised) they're making it available to everyone. Especially since the incidence of the disease is twice as high in certain populations as in others.

There should be a stigma associated with those who must accept charity. This is a tough love rule but it applies.

Nothing good comes from makng it easy to accept charity.

Life is not a promise of good times and expanisve dreams.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

There should be a stigma associated with those who must accept charity. This is a tough love rule but it applies.

I'm happy that over centuries we finally reached a point in history and society that abandonned this stigma .... a long time ago.

Besides, public health is no charity but part of my rights.

0 Replies

There's a stigma in my mind for those who think charity cases are by nature folks bent on milking the system. There are those, and they are created by a system that does not work properly. The hard hearted among us are bent on placing the truly deserving in the same category, so that they can save "their" money from going to the needy. Meantime "their" money goes out like diarhea to fantastic military adventures and the like.

0 Replies

Finn wrote:

Quote:

There should be a stigma associated with those who must accept charity. This is a tough love rule but it applies.

To who? To everyone who ever finds him or herself in a situation in which they must rely on the kindness of others? That's just crazy. How about orphans whose parents are killed in an accident or children who are born to drug addicted mothers or able-bodied working people who are disabled through accident or disease?
If you treat people who have come from nothing as if they are nothing- how do you ever expect them to feel enough pride in themselves to feel able or even want to make something of themselves?

Quote:

Nothing good comes from makng it easy to accept charity.

I don't think most people who find themselves in a situation where they have to accept charity ever find it pleasant or easy.
A thief is a thief, and those who milk the system and steal are an entirely different breed from those who have no choice but to accept help in order to make it through.

Quote:

Life is not a promise of good times and expanisve dreams.

You're exactly right. I could get in a car accident tomorrow and be paralyzed from the neck down for the rest of my life. So could you. All I know is I feel led to treat people who need help now as I'd like to be treated if I were ever to need the same kind of help. Insurance (even the best) only goes so far you know, and none of us ever know what life holds in store for each of us.

0 Replies

Nice post, Aidan, I agree.

Any illusions I had about people who are on welfare and/or SSI were shattered when I worked with that group for 3 years in L.A. -- these were good, decent people with major hurdles to overcome who were nonetheless were working their butts off to succeed. And "succeed," for them, had as its first entry "get off of welfare."

0 Replies

I have been on "wellfare" (= housing benefits and unemployment benefit) twice.

That's my constitutional right here;

Quote:

Article 20a [Protection of the natural bases of life]
Mindful also of its responsibility toward future generations, the state shall protect the natural bases of life by legislation and, in accordance with law and justice, by executive and judicial action, all within the framework of the constitutional order.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

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.

Off the mark, as usual, Finn.

0 Replies

This is a partial transcript of "The Big Story With John Gibson," February 6, 2007, that has been edited for clarity.

JOHN GIBSON, HOST: The "Big Debate": parents vs. state lawmakers. Has Texas Governor Rick Perry stepped over the line when it comes to your child's health? Today the Republican governor defended his controversial order forcing all sixth grade girls in Texas to be vaccinated against a virus that causes cervical cancer.

GOV. RICK PERRY, R-TEXAS: I understand the concern some of my great and dear friends have about requiring this vaccine, which is why parents can opt out if they so choose. But I refuse to look a young woman in the eye who suffers from this form of cancer and tell her that we could have stopped it, but we didn't.

GIBSON: Not only are parents outraged by the whole idea of forced vaccinations, but Perry's fellow Republicans, his allies, are also throwing him under the bus, blaming him for caving in to his buddies at Merck, the maker of the vaccine.

Is this all about money for some of Perry's friends? With me now is one concerned parent in Texas, Colleen Parro. She's also director of the Republican Coalition for Life.

So Colleen, the governor feels that he has a right to just sign an order and make every girl in Texas take this shot. Does he?

COLLEEN PARRO, CONCERNED TEXAS PARENT: I don't think so. I think he has usurped the rights of parents. He's trampled over the legislature in Texas and demolished the separation of powers. I think this is a very large blunder and I hope that he will have the good sense to withdraw his executive order or I hope if he doesn't that the legislature will overturn it. Or if that doesn't work I hear that lawsuits are in the works.

GIBSON: Colleen, let me put this on the screen. This is the question: Texas vaccinates girls: the governor's decision or is it the parents' call? I know there are some people, like yourself, objecting, but is there any kind of widespread groundswell against the governor's order?

PARRO: Yes, I think there is a very big widespread opposition to the governor's order and I think we're going to see more of it as the days go by. After all, 82 adverse events have already been reported to the CDC since Gardasil was put on the market in June.

You know, the governor has assumed the right of parents to make a decision about their children's medical care. But he has none of the responsibility to take care of the little girl should she have a serious medical consequence. This is totally wrong that he has done this, and it has to be reversed.

GIBSON: Colleen, the governor has issued this order. It is a big benefit for Merck. He's got two former chiefs of staff working for Merck; the mother of one of the chiefs of staff is involved in an organization pushing for this. Has the governor just caved in to his close buddies who now work for Merck?

PARRO: I certainly can't comment on his motivation. I don't know what his motivation is. But of course it is very clear in the media that his former chief of staff is being paid $250,000 to lobby for this decision by Merck, and also that Dianne White Delisi, who is a state legislator in Texas, is also working with Merck in this project and her daughter-in-law is the current chief of staff for Governor Perry. So there is a close relationship.

GIBSON: Colleen Parro, director of the Republican Coalition for Life, thanks very much. Appreciate it.

PARRO: You're welcome.

0 Replies

When will we ever get a vaccine to cure finnism/conservative doublespeak? Smile

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

Finn wrote:

Quote:
There should be a stigma associated with those who must accept charity. This is a tough love rule but it applies.

To who? To everyone who ever finds him or herself in a situation in which they must rely on the kindness of others? That's just crazy. How about orphans whose parents are killed in an accident or children who are born to drug addicted mothers or able-bodied working people who are disabled through accident or disease?
If you treat people who have come from nothing as if they are nothing- how do you ever expect them to feel enough pride in themselves to feel able or even want to make something of themselves?

Quote:
Nothing good comes from makng it easy to accept charity.

I don't think most people who find themselves in a situation where they have to accept charity ever find it pleasant or easy.
A thief is a thief, and those who milk the system and steal are an entirely different breed from those who have no choice but to accept help in order to make it through.

Quote:
Life is not a promise of good times and expanisve dreams.

You're exactly right. I could get in a car accident tomorrow and be paralyzed from the neck down for the rest of my life. So could you. All I know is I feel led to treat people who need help now as I'd like to be treated if I were ever to need the same kind of help. Insurance (even the best) only goes so far you know, and none of us ever know what life holds in store for each of us.

It would be a mistake to interpret my comments as an argument against helping people in need. Nothing could be farther from what I believe and how I act.

I also am not suggesting that those who assist people in need should do so in a manner that demeans the recipients of their charity.

Perhaps stigma is too strong a word in light of its specific definition:

a mark of disgrace or infamy; a stain or reproach, as on one's reputation

Clearly, accepting assistance, when needed, is neither disgraceful nor a reflection of infamy, but I still contend that it is, in the final analysis, a good thing for citizens who receive charity from their fellows do so with a sense of discomfort if not mild shame.

The good of this is not in their discomfort itself but in the fact that it is reflective of an inate sense of personal pride and self-reliance.

Children are not capable of supporting themselves through legal means and thus the support society provides to those in need is not what I would consider charity. Any meaningul support of orphans, for example, would have to include an upbringing that sought to instill in them a sense of personal pride and self-reliance.

Society as a whole is healthier when charity if freely given, but accepted with a self-imposed price.

0 Replies

I am trying hard to not wish you need charity one day.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

I am trying hard to not wish you need charity one day.

Don't hurt yourself.

0 Replies

Finn wrote:

Quote:

Society as a whole is healthier when charity if freely given, but accepted with a self-imposed price.

I see what you're saying, and I do agree. I've never thought requiring work of people in return for support that most people are able to earn themselves is wrong or in any way unreasonable. That's life for most of us. And I think in general that system or philosophy works better than the one that allows people to languish or wallow in their circumstances as they are without expectations or requirements that will serve to inspire them to get back on their feet and experience the satisfaction of making it on their own steam (if they physically can).

I guess what I was saying is that in most people, at least people who are honest, that discomfort is innate and usually automatically occurring, and so it serves no added purpose for those who are administering the "charity" to add their disdain into the mix. Because when they do, it usually doesn't result in any positive change, it usually only works to pull the person even lower in his or her own estimation so that s/he then has even further to struggle to climb out of whatever hole they're in (and that's true whether they've dug their own hole or were victims of circumstance).

Because of the jobs I've had and the populations I've worked with, I've just seen that disdain enacted by so many different people in so many different professions- towards children, toward pregnant women who were abused as children and are then treated as "lesser thans" for the rest of their lives-and that's even by the doctors and nurses who are helping them give birth. It's soul destroying and it's horrible to have to watch, and it doesn't benefit these people or our society in any way.

I hope these girls (who are being lined up to accept this charity) don't get subjected to the same thing. To treat them as numbers and give them this just so we won't have to spend any money on them later, and to let them know that by the way they're talked about and treated during this whole procedure would be a greater disservice than neglecting to give them the vaccine because their own families can't pay for it for them.

I'm glad you explained what you meant, because what you'd previously stated (or the way you stated it) painted an entirely different, and maybe misleading, picture.

0 Replies

Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Wednesday announced that the government will provide Merck's human papillomavirus vaccine Gardasil at no cost to girls and women ages 12 to 26

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Wednesday announced that the government will provide Merck's human papillomavirus vaccine Gardasil at no cost to girls and women ages 12 to 26

An enlightened yet properly restrained position.

0 Replies

Quote from above article:
"The majority public health opinion is we really should be moving a little slower than this."

0 Replies

Yeah, I bet that's what people really want. Slower decisions...slower government....maybe even more public servants and more red tape.

Here, there was a public outcry when the government rejected the drug company's first offer to have it subsidised (which is the standard thing to do, they then re-submit at a lower fee, and get accepted)

0 Replies

No, they want, or should want, reasoned decisions, instead of snap judjements which could be detrimental to someone's health. Instead of a mad rush to inject these girls, give it time to prove itself.

0 Replies

Cervical Cancer Vaccine Ordered For Texans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know