Who's The Parent?

Hpv Vaccination Mandate Was Government Wrongly Doing The Job Of Parents

September 02, 2009

When did it become government's business to protect 11-year-olds from sexually transmitted diseases?

In Virginia, the answer is 2007.

That's when the General Assembly mandated that, beginning with this school year, every girl entering the sixth grade in Virginia be vaccinated against human papillomavirus, which causes the most common sexually transmitted disease and - more the point - cervical cancer.

The mandate was amended so parents can easily opt out. But the campaign nevertheless represented a kind of expectation creep - assuming that government should step in to take care of more and more needs in our personal lives.

The push for the mandatory vaccination didn't come from parents clamoring for help getting the vaccine for their daughters.

It didn't come from public health professionals identifying a need. That would be the case with a disease like chicken pox: Children need to be vaccinated because a child with the disease poses a risk to those around her, even in casual contact. But HPV is spread through sexual activity, and it is not, according to an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association, enough of an urgent threat to school children to justify a mandate.

Instead, the push for the government to require vaccination came from the only maker of the vaccine. To create demand for its new drug, named Gardasil, Merck launched a lobbying effort, but only in Virginia did it find a receptive audience (the governor of Texas issued a mandate but the legislature overturned it).

Merck paved the way by spreading money around, making contributions to dozens of legislators, including Newport News Del. Phil Hamilton, who, with Hampton Del. Jeion Ward, sponsored the bill to mandate the vaccinations.

As their proposal made its way across the desk of Gov. Tim Kaine, it became more reasonable, with a clause that makes it easy for parents to opt out.

That's good, because the mandate's implication - that all girls need to be prepared for sex at the age of 11 or 12 - was offensive to many. It should be up to parents, based on their values and what they know about their daughters, to decide the right time to protect them.

But the "requirement" stays on the books, because it clears the way for the state to provide the shots free of charge to all girls who are 11 or 12 or entering sixth grade - regardless of family income or insurance.

Which brings us back to this question: Why is it up to taxpayers to protect 11-year-olds from sexually transmitted diseases?

The more government takes over things that should be parents' responsibility, the more it communicates that, "You don't have to take care of your children, the government will." Strong parents aren't susceptible and step up to their role. But for others, the perception of what being a parent involves relaxes, with the understanding that government will feed their children breakfast and lunch at school, take over their character and sex education ... and on and on.

Society is better served by building up, not undermining parents. By helping them understand and live up to their obligations, not by taking over for them.

It makes sense for the state to educate parents about HPV and encourage them to vaccinate their daughters. It makes sense to offer shots on a sliding price scale - for families that can't afford them.

It makes sense for government to help parents be effective, not dependent.

Daily Press Articles