If this is in the wrong place, please move it. AUSTIN, Texas - Merck & Co. stands to make billions of dollars should other states follow Texas' lead and require schoolgirls to receive its new anti-cancer vaccine. Supporters of the mandate say it would be a small price to pay to eradicate a dangerous sexually transmitted disease.
At issue is whether Gov. Rick Perry's order Friday requiring the vaccinations is driven by political cronyism and a hard-lobbying drug company's hunger for profits, or is simply good public policy.
About 10,000 American women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer this year, according to the American Cancer Society, and about one-third of them will die.
Texas lawmakers who support requiring the vaccine say Perry's order will spare some young girls from the same fate when they grow up.
"We could see this be a thing of the past," state Rep. Jessica Farrar said.
Beginning in September 2008, girls entering the sixth grade - meaning, generally, girls ages 11 and 12 - will have to get Gardasil, Merck's new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV.
Perry also directed state health authorities to make the vaccine available free to girls 9 to 18 who are uninsured, enrolled in Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program or whose insurance does not cover vaccines. In addition, he ordered that Medicaid offer Gardasil to women ages 19 to 21.
Merck worked hard to make the Texas mandate a reality, doubling its lobbying budget here and employing a former Perry chief of staff to make the company's case to the governor and the Legislature.
It also funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country. The mother-in-law of Perry's current chief of staff is a state director for the organization.
Merck officials have repeatedly declined to say how much the company has spent on the lobbying blitz or how much it has given to Women in Government. Perry received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.
But Merck spokesman Christopher Loder said Friday that the company simply wants to "help reduce the burden of cervical cancer - the second leading cancer among women around the world - and other HPV-related diseases for as many people as possible, and as quickly as possible."
Some conservatives oppose the requirement, saying it tramples on parents' rights and sends the message that it's OK to engage in premarital sex.
Perry, a Republican who opposes abortion and stem-cell research using embryonic cells, counts on the religious right for his political base. But he has said the cervical cancer vaccine is no different from the one that protects children against polio.
"The HPV vaccine provides us with an incredible opportunity to effectively target and prevent cervical cancer," Perry said in announcing the order.
Texas allows parents to opt out of inoculations by filing an affidavit objecting to the vaccine on religious or philosophical reasons. Even with such provisions, however, conservative groups say such requirements interfere with parents' rights to make medical decisions for their children.
"He's circumventing the will of the people," said Dawn Richardson, president of Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education, a citizens group that has fought for the right to opt out of other vaccine requirements. "There are bills filed. There's no emergency except in the boardrooms of Merck, where this is failing to gain the support that they had expected."
Legislative aides said they are looking for ways to make it easier for parents to get around the mandate.
The federal government approved Gardasil in June, and a government advisory panel has recommended that all girls get the shots at 11 and 12, before they are likely to be sexually active.
New Jersey-based Merck could generate billions in sales if Gardasil - at $360 for a three-shot regimen - were made mandatory across the country. Most insurance companies now cover the vaccine, which has been shown to have no serious side effects.
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070203/NEWS02/702030327
What do you people think about this?
I'm completely against forcing girls to get it for a number of reasons. The first one is that it's a new vaccine and we don't know long-term side effects.
Another reason is that it only prevents a few strains of the cancer, while giving the impression that it prevents all of them.
The strongest reason I'm against it though, is because the governor who has made this law has financial ties to the company that makes the vaccine.
So, opinions?
-------
This is the way the world ends.
Not with a bang, but a whimper.
273 users online 
221739 members 
You have 1 new message.
Patron
I would laugh if the vaccine ended up killing them all or something.
Ad Free
