• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

The Gardasil divide

When members of one side of the political divide argue among themselves, it can be instructive for the general population. So it is with the debate now being engaged on the right about the HPV vaccine Gardasil and Texas Gov. Rick Perry's executive order that required all Texas girls to receive it before entering sixth grade. There is a developing consensus among conservatives (it seems to me) that:

1. Gov. Perry didn't acquit himself very well in the debate when Gardasil was brought up. He admitted he made a mistake, but only in going the executive-order route instead of referring the matter to the legislature. This makes it sound like he thinks his error was not in what he did but how he did it. For someone espousing a small-government philosophy, this was an incredibly anti-freedom position.

2. Rep. Michele Bachmann was correct in pointing all this out in the debate, but then she went on an anti-vaccine tirade that sounded like a caricature of the anti-science Republican. How dare our government overlords trump parental rights by forcing this dangerous injection into our sweet 12-year-old girls! In fact, Gardasil tests for FDA approval showed it to be highly effective with no serious side effects.

I agree in general with both points -- neither candidate came off looking good over this. But I think an essential point is being missed, as in this post by a National Review writer who is also a doctor:

Having spent 15 years at the FDA and having seen regulation — the good, the bad and the ugly — up close, I am as opposed to anyone (except perhaps Ron Paul) to non-essential government intrusion into our lives. But some interventions are good. Among those I would include vaccination against childhood diseases and compulsory use of seat belts and motorcycle helmets.

Seat belts and motorcycle helmets are the last things I'd bring up in this debate, because they epitomize the tendency of govertment to overreach. The right template when considering the appropriateness of government intervent should be: Does the action being regulated affect others or only the person taking the action? (That's why I think the public smoking debate should hinge on whether secondhand smoke is really dangerous or not, rather than whether bans infringe on private property rights. About which, see this.)

It is generally accepted (even among most libertarians, I think) that compulsory immunization is justified for things like measles and polio (see some of the comments on the linked post) because they are highly contagious and can quickly sweep through the populace. HPV doesn't reach that same level of threat -- it affects only those whose behavior puts them in contact with it. So it might be appropriate for the government to encourage the use of Gardasil, and you could even make an argument for the government supplying it. But it's not something that should be compulsory, especially considering how much it pushes "we're just encouraging sexual promiscuity among the young" buttons.

It's disheartening how seldom government rules reflect a thorough and honest assessment of risk and threat. Indiana's incoherence on the subject has been much discussed, including here, the prime example being mandatory seat belts but not motorcycle helmets. They should both be mandatory, or neither should be -- nothing else makes any legal or moral sense. And since the only one affected is the person not wearing the helmet or the seat belt, the correct answer is "neither." And while we're arguing that, it's worth noting that the state long ago stopped requiring vehicle safety inspections. We are forbidden by law from, say, drinking and driving, because that could endanger everybody else on the road. But it's OK if we drive around with lousy brakes or no brakes at all. Buckle up!

Quantcast