Can the state of Texas justify requiring HPV vaccines for its young population when that rule might butt heads with the morals of some youngsters’ parents? More broadly, when is a state justified in using the “for your own good” argument to get what it wants?
You really do find the hard cases, don’t you, Dan?
My two cents: my forebrain tells me to go libertarian on this. The dichotomy you set up in your last post doesn’t seem like much of a competition. You asked:
Can the state’s right to protect me from disease live side-by-side with the individual’s right to refuse to participate in the program?
When you put it that way, how could anyone side with the state? An individual’s right to refuse something as invasive as a vaccination for his or her children seems pretty unimpeachable. On the other side, what does a “state’s right to protect me from disease” even look like? Do we mean the state’s right to preserve itself by protecting the lives of its citizens? Or the state’s obligation to do so? On top of these ambiguities, we should be careful about being promiscuous with the term “state”…when you reduce the notion of a “state” to a collection of a like-minded but fundamentally independent individuals, as most classical liberals would, the argument for a state’s right to impose vaccinations makes even less sense.
But can’t we justify this from a pragmatic point of view? This is one of those easy cases wherein the only folks who’re likely to refuse to let their children receive the vaccines (the religious zealots) are already such reprehensible people that most of us wouldn’t feel bad trampling over their concerns. This seems pretty cut-and-dried, as everyone agrees that HPV is all bad, and that immunity from it is all good, and if this policy steps on the hypersensitive, evangelical toes of a few backwater cowfolks, well, frak ‘em.
So here’s where I’d like to take this discussion: When does practicality trump principle? In an easy case like this, with good guys and bad guys, should we allow ourselves the luxury of tipping our hats to political freedoms on the way to the altar of outcomes? It’s awfully tempting…what do you think?
–Morgan Hubbard
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
12 February, 2007 at 3: 59
madmouser
I am for individual rights. Plain and simple. I think the State and Federal governments have over-stepped their bounds.
13 February, 2007 at 4: 14
Morgan Hubbard
Well, sure, madmouser, we’re all “for individual rights,” excepting a few fascists. But that’s not a solution, only a jumping-off point. One can be both “for individual rights” of individuals to raise their children as they see fit AND “for individual rights” of children not to be subjected to irrational decisions forced on them by their parents which might culminate in cervical cancer. Like I said in my post, this debate seems like a pretty easy case for individual rights, but it’s not impossible to justify the mandatory HPV vaccine along libertarian grounds. What do you think?
Morgan Hubbard
17 February, 2007 at 9: 31
Paola Luisi
Perhaps it is time that I join this discussion. It’s time I learned how to express myself on paper instead of live debate. Morgan sent me a link to this site a while ago and I will admit I enjoy reading it from time to time. I hope you don’t mind a post from a very bored student (with little confidence in her writing skills) who continues to find new and creative ways to put off reading… Plus since Morgan left the University of Maryland I have found myself with far less interesting people to heckle.
The post regarding the HPV vaccine and “for your own good argument” is interesting. Morgan, you ask correctly to what extent can the state use such an argument despite personal objections. It is a difficult question, but not a new question. From my understanding one of the motivations behind Libertarianism is the belief in a slippery slope regarding government intervention. But what if that same slope were applied to other areas of the law where the “for your own good” dominates?
Legally, the “for your own good argument” it is not without precedent, especially when it comes to minors. The majority of the students that would be forced to take Gardasil are under eighteen. The majority of those who are making noise over this vaccine are parents. Yet, in even the most conservative strongholds exist laws that enable the state to enter the home in cases of child abuse. I am not comparing the refusal of Gardasil to child abuse – my point is that in some cases the law has already deemed minors without the ability to determine their own good and parents without supreme moral authority. It calls attention to certain religious believers in this country that refuse medical treatment to their children – some don’t believe in blood transfusions for example. The state can take custody of a child based on the assumption that minors, like parents, do not always know what is best. In some cases it can even mandate medical treatment. My point is, if the state is barred from giving its daughters a vaccine then what keeps the slope from reversing?
You also forget to mention another motivation for such state intervention – “for the good of others.” The unfortunate reality behind HPV is that a significant number of people with the STD do not know they have it, will never know they have it, and will most likely pass it on. Luckily the vast majority of HPV strains rarely lead to cervical cancer, if not, millions more women would die from it each year. Given the elusive nature of this virus “for the good of others” is not only relevant but a pressing issue. Might I also remind you that before entering the University of Maryland (a public school) you had to turn in an immunization form, without which, you would have been denied registration. Dan, I don’t know you personally but I imagine it was the same for law school.
I think the dangerous thinking behind some of the opposition to the vaccine merits attention. I have no qualms in stating that I have little respect for the argument that Gardasil promotes promiscuity, for obvious reasons. Moreover, the vaccine only protects against specific strains of the virus that are most likely to cause cervical cancer. Getting the vaccine still leaves the door open for a number of other strains, though not deadly, do not sound peachy. Putting aside the libertarian questions for the moment, grass-roots opposition to the vaccine are fueled by anti-women, anti-science, religious fundamentalists. I am referring to the ever-so-powerful religious right leaders, including my personal favorite, Dr. Dobson. His wonderful organization can be found online at family.org. (Which by the way is a great website if you need help on finding “rehabilitation centers” for your gay children…too bad Haggard didn’t get the memo…though I hear he’s 100% heterosexual these days) Other than the fact that Dobson thinks Marbury v. Madison was the worst thing that ever happened to this country, this opposition is a result of an ongoing assault on science and a rather prudish approach to decent health policy. I also won’t go into the significant socio-economic issues that surround cervical cancer/HPV/ and good health care.
Finally, I know your forebrain tells you to go libertarian yet I still cannot reconcile how a) you went to a public University and b) you’re working at the most intrusive government agency on the planet. Maybe I skipped that lecture in GVPT 100. How I love taking advantage of Maryland tax-payers that subsidize my public education by sleeping through my classes.
Might I suggest a new topic? After some thought, I’ve concluded that vegans should be pro-life. I’ve never met a pro-life vegan and it is my understanding that they are rare. It seems bizarre to me, shouldn’t vegans be pro-life? I’ve tried to have my pro-choice vegan roommate explain it to me but I’m not convinced. Anyone?
17 February, 2007 at 9: 32
Paola Luisi
Oops this is clearly not the blog posting box. Whatever. Oh and my e-mail is paolaluisi@gmail.com
18 August, 2007 at 16: 10
kkraz
In light of the information now available about the side effects of the HPV vaccines, I’d say there was another point of view that you did not consider.
In the last year, nearly 2,000 adverse effects reports have been filed with VAERS (joint CDC and FDA database) and, historically, reports represent a small percentage of actual events. These reports of near term effects include fainting, seizures, Guillian Barre syndrome, and other neurological disorders and permanent disabilities. In addition, at least three deaths are under investigation to determine if the vaccine was a cause or contributor.
Also, the American College of Pediatricians recommended against mandatory vaccination because the available data is limited and short term. The work which led to the vaccine is barely more than 10 years old. No one knows what the long term effects of the vaccine will be.
22 January, 2009 at 7: 53
Weergyfag
Nothing seems to be easier than seeing someone whom you can help but not helping.
I suggest we start giving it a try. Give love to the ones that need it.
God will appreciate it.