(no subject)

[Guest guest]

National syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman's recent column was headlined: "Do Conservative "values" include risking women's lives?" The column informs us of a "new vaccine that was 100% successful in preventing the virus that causes most cervical cancer, the second-leading cancer killer of women in the world." According to Ms. Goodman, "the success story was greeted with cork-popping enthusiasm by doctors, such as, Eliav Barr of the beleagured Merk..who offered a toast: "This is it. This is the Holy Grail". Ms. Goodman went on to describe her personal angst towards those who would prefer we teach children to abstain from the risks associated with promiscuity rather than giving them a vaccine that will provide them with greater sexual freedom. Ms. Goodman states: "The vaccine would have to be given to preteens before they are sexually active" and warns "medical science is now working on shots for gonorrhea and chlamydia". To make her point even more dramatic she asks: "If we come up with a vaccine for AIDS, which do you choose: an abstinence pledge or a cure?"

It is truly sad to see a nationally syndicated columnist write so ignorantly on the subject of mandatory vaccines. Most parents and public health officials agree that mandatory vaccinations are necessary in order to provide their own child "herd" protection from serious outbreaks of easily communicable diseases, such as, measles, mumps, whooping cought, etc. etc. Most parents and public health officials also acknowledge these mandatory vaccines are not without risks to the child's health. However, there is a vast distinction between mandating vaccines that protect the "herd" and vaccines that seek to protect certain "lifestyles". Such as, promiscious sexual lifestyles accompanied by rampant drug and alcohol abuse. This is precisely why so many objected to the hepititis vaccine given to newborns. Why in God's name would public health officials believe they were protecting the "herd" by exposing every newborn to the associated risks of a potent vaccine designed exclusively to combat a "lifestyle" virus?

I know it would be difficult for Ms. Goodman to avoid taking a cheap shot at the "Taliban" who want to impose their "moral values" on the rest of us by their objecting to the "holy grail" of cervical cancer vaccines, but, she really ought to re-evaluate her calloused disregard for the health of those purely innocent children she would so easily mandate vaccines for AIDS, gonorrhea, chalmydia, etc. At what point does Ms. Goodman suggest people within the "herd" are responsible for their own conduct and ought not expect the children of others to be placed at risk for their unsafe sexual conduct and unwise decisions in life?