Thoughts on Texas Vaccinations for Girls

In the editorial section of the New York Times today, A Vaccine to Save Women's Lives appears. I've heard the news of the upcoming mandatory vaccinations for girls in the state of Texas and it disturbs me on a couple of fronts.

First of all, let me concede, I think the vaccine itself is a good idea. I'm all for protection against disease and the threat of HPV in causing cervical cancer is real.

With that said, my issue with this new vaccine is that it will be administered to girls - girls that have parents. The right of parents to make crucial decisions in the life of their children is fundamental and should not be infringed upon by government. This is a situation where the good gets in the way of the best. It is a good thing for government officials to be concerned with the wellbeing of children; it is the best thing for the parents to ultimately decide what is in the best interest of their children.

The other item that is somewhat bothersome is the well-funded message that HPV equals cervical cancer and cervical cancer can be avoided with a vaccine. Why? Because there should be an equally well-funded message that abstinence is equal to no HPV. Why is the only commercial aired an advertisement for the drug solution alone...oh...I get it...there's money to be made by someone for pointing in a singular direction.

I hope that my children get the message of abstinence. I hope that the person they marry will have gotten the message too. It takes too people without HPV to keep each other virus free. I wonder if I will consider this option for my own kids. Every parent would like to think that the values they teach their children will stick and their lives will go as planned. It is possible that one day I might have to make a decision to utilize the vaccine. But that's just it...I want to make the decision; the government making the decision for my children is not something that sits well.