Monday, November 07, 2005

Morality Monday

Recently, a vaccine for the sexually transmitted disease HPV (human Papilloma virus) has been approved for use on humans. HPV is one of the most widespread STDs in the United States and a major cause of cervical cancer in women. Women who get cervical cancer face major invasive surgery including hysterectomy. Cervical cancer also has a significant mortality rate. The vaccine is 100% effective at preventing HPV and a plan has been suggested to inoculate all women around the time of puberty. This inoculation would have the effect of stopping the spread of HPV dead in its tracks in the U.S., causing a severe drop in the occurrence of cervical cancer and reducing the number of women who die and become infertile as a result of the virus.
However, there are some groups in this country who are concerned that inoculating preteens will encourage promiscuous behavior and may cause an increase in the occurrence in other STDs, an increase in abortions, and an increase in generally immoral behavior. The benefits of inoculation could be far outweighed by its negative impact on the behavior of our youths. Hormone pumping teens hardly need an excuse to be less responsible. And that is exactly what the vaccine does: it relieves people of facing the consequences of their actions. It encourages irresponsible behavior.
So the discussion question for Morality Monday is this: Is it moral (however you might define that) to force the inoculation? Is it moral to withhold the vaccine?
Now, some guidelines for discussion on this blog: Please do not drop names of philosophers to try to give your point more gravitas. I don’t mind if you espouse their ideas, but please don’t credit them for those ideas. No one is going to accuse you of stealing ideas, and ideas are all we are interested in here. Not the big names behind them. Also, don’t belittle someone else’s ideas or attack anyone personally. Discussion without civility should have no place in our society, and it has no place on Fish Frog Monkey Man (with the occasional exception of a grumpy post by me every now and then). Within those guidelines, please discuss. Feel free to post early and often, and don’t worry about how silly your position might sound. It can’t possibly be as dumb as the majority of stuff that comes out of my mouth and at times ends up on this blog. If you believe it, get it out there! As for me, I will probably be arguing whichever side seems to have fewer supporters. Enjoy.


Blogger scarlet panda said...

Before I post my position, I just want to add an extra fact for everyone to consider: I, scarlet panda, received the HPV vaccine when it was in its final stages of testing (I was in grad school at the time and had to sell my body to scientific research studies to pay the rent). If you've been wondering why I have I have non-stop, consequence-free, unprotected sex with as many partners as possible, wonder no more.

12:15 PM  
Blogger warm fuzzy said...

Total crap. I think it is completely immoral to withhold the vaccine because of fear of promiscuity.

I don't know of too many teenagers out there saying, "I would engage in sex, and lots of it, if only I were vaccinated aganst HPV. Oh well, guess I'll abstein." Please! Most kids who go to the doctor don't even know what shots their getting.

12:58 PM  
Blogger Xeno said...

I agree with fuzzy. The program should be a opt out program not a opt in program. If you can cure a disease and do not act... that is imoral.

1:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seeing how I tend to represent the conservative aspect of society in blogs, i feel that I need to weigh in. I think that immorality is bad. I do not hink that it is so bad that someone should have their uterus cut out and then die slowly of cancer. Sorry if I was supposed to add controversy, but a married woman who only ever has sex with her husband can be killed by this virus if he carries it as easily as a crack whore. Cure the disease for pities sake.

2:48 PM  
Anonymous nell said...

Teenagers are stupid... I understand this. I believe wholeheartedly that there are some juvenile idiots out there who will have more sex, perhaps become pregnant or sick, because they were vaccinated for an STD. Granted this is not the case for most, but it is the case for some and we must acknowledge this.
Yet, to have the chance to knock out a deadly disease and not do it because of the possible actions of some is absurd. Let's not let the stupid prevent us from doing what is right.

3:04 PM  
Anonymous Leo said...

I think Heidegger's position on this issue would be clear, however I find Hegel's reasoning more persuasive. However, the Neo-Hegelians have confused the issue by importing Schopenhauer's categories into an argument on which they have no bearing. I suppose that leaves us with nowhere to go but Kant, whose position on this issue is well known.

4:38 PM  
Anonymous Beth said...

Given the debate over the issue of positions, it seems clear that these philosophers were willing to bonk anything and everything, so vaccines would be well received, especially in the case of Freidrich "syphilis-induced insanity" Nietszche

4:41 PM  
Blogger Squishy Burrito said...

I really wish I could go for the minority but a vaccine is a vaccine and vaccines are good. Make 'em get it. My only concern would be if it had side effects. Scarlet Panda, are you dizzy, tired, have goiters, etc.

4:42 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home