Having moderate views in today’s political climate can be very confusing. With such polar opposite ideologies always fighting for dominance, it is often difficult to decide if something is too “left” or too “right”. This may sound excessively nerdy, but when I’m faced with this situation I like to engage in debates with my friends. I’m often even the devil’s advocate just for the sake of experiencing and learning the other viewpoint. This semester I found myself often debating the new HPV vaccination law in California. This law, which will go into effect on January 1, 2012, will allow any child aged twelve or older to receive HPV vaccines without parental consent. Below are just two of the responses I made to arguments that I heard. Feel free to respond to this post with your ideas/opinions/arguments!

This idea is too expensive. HPV vaccines are not cheap. This law will cost countless tax dollars since any child without parental consent can receive a ‘free’ HPV vaccine. Numerous people are likely to take advantage of the system and prompt their children to receive the free vaccines when they can actually afford it.
              -Although the vaccine is quite expensive, this law shouldn’t impact costs too
               much. This law isn’t introducing the idea of tax-paid HPV vaccines. Vaccines for 
               Children (VFC) is a federal program that already offers vaccines – including the  
               HPV  vaccines-at no cost for children under 19 years of age who are Medicaid
               eligible, uninsured, under-insured, or American Indian or Alaska Native. In other 
               words, if a person is part of an insurance plan that does not cover a particular
               vaccine, then that person is considered “under-insured” and is eligible to 
               receive the vaccination for free by a VFC provider. Therefore, it seems that 
               everyone is covered. The only people who are not currently covered are young
               people who have a parent who refuses to allow them to receive the vaccine.
             -Since anyone with or without an insurance plan is already covered to receive the 
               vaccine, it doesn’t seem likely that people would “take advantage of the system”.

Children should not be making health decisions without help from their parents. 
          -I agree. I think parents should be involved in their children’s health decisions.
           Unfortunately, as much as we would like to believe that all parents are involved 
           in  their children’s health, this is not the case. Family life is not always composed
           of caring parents who support their children. Children often raise themselves or 
           other children. Furthermore, parents often have the inability or lack of desire to
           address any sexual related topics with their children. No matter what the issue or  
           reason, if a person wants to protect his or her health, then shouldn’t he or she have
           the ability and access to do it? If a twelve year old knows about a vaccine, is 
           educated about the matter, and requests a vaccination, should she or he not be 
           able to receive it? If young men and women of teenage years decide to protect 
           themselves from STIs, should we not encourage and foster their responsible health
           practices?

To read more about VFC program, visit
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/default.htm