The HPV Vaccine Debate - The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly
by LibertyVini?
Not to beat around the bush (ahem), a vaccine against a leading cause of cancer (cervical, in this case) is a positive development, if it works, and if the side effects are rare and mild enough. (good).
Two related developments that are bad; mandatory, taxpayer-funded HPV vaccines, and easily-ridiculed "Christian" groups railing against them.
And the ugly? The hell we are going to catch for our characterization of the above as "bad" (sorry, Violet!).
But inividual freedom is a necessity in health matters as much as any others. And vaccinating 10 million plus women per year against some?(+/-70%) of the 9,700?annual cervical cancer cases?(the vaccine does not prevent all HPV infections or cancers) seems like a meager return on both the financial investment (with a cost of $360, Gardasil is the most expensive vaccine ever developed) and the health risk (unknown) of the shots.?
Particularly in light of Bill Frist's grant of immunity to vaccine makers whose products maim or kill, added to the fact that the taxpayer, and not the consumer will be paying for the bulk of the shots, and it starts to look like less of an unmitigated good deal.
This is a classic case where the choice in the matter is?best left up to the individual?and her physician.
(Links from tinynibbles.com and Time Magazine)
Comments
The difference between the HPV vaccine and previous innouculations (e.g., MMR) is that the latter diseases are communicable, hence there are objectively recognizable positive externalities to universal vaccination. Such is not the case with HPV. "It's a market failure" is a valid reason to mandate immunization; "it's a good idea" is not.
Positive externalities or not, there are no valid reasons for mandatory (i.e., forced), taxpayer-paid (force again) vaccinations. If they are a benefit, people will get them, no force required, if they don't they alone bear the consequences. I am aware that "mandatory" here means as a condition for being ALLOWED to use public schools. We have no problem at all with PRIVATE schools requiring such, and we believe that all schools should be private. So we are not against vaccines or requiring them for school attendance PER SE, but simply oppose the initiation of force to achieve them.
The term "market failure" was invented by socialists to give the impression that they're conscious of economics while picking your pocket to serve their own ends. Just invoke "market failure" if you put forth a notion that everyone wants/needs something but for some reason the invisible hand got a cramp that day so the only way to give the great unwashed what they need is to appoint an HPV czar, erect a multitude of new offices and send hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
Actually bitmonger, you have a point in that patents are simply another form of government coercion, as much a violation of natural property rights as eminent domain is. If they did not exist, the market would still call forth innovation, but the price would be far, far lower due to competition, and safe vaccines that work would be adopted more quickly, as the benefits became apparent. All of this bolsters my point that the vaccine should be made freely available on the market, and argues against force being used to sell or distribute the shots. And please, don't drag a "government ethics" argument in here, LOL.
Let me turn the economic arguments around - if there is an economic benefit to the individual, wouldn't they be lining up to purchase the shots voluntarily? What about if the economics are a wash, but a health benefit? I daresay anyone who evaluates his or her risk of contracting HPV and concludes that it is unacceptable will make the investmen,t IF the shot is proven to be safe and effective. So why is government force required? Who benefits from a state-driven demand? Part of the answer; http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/012231.html
I hate to do these calculations, but let's assume 10 million shots per year is reasonable, that the shot costs $510 per woman ($360 plus 3 doctor visits at $50 each), and that 2590 deaths per year are prevented (70% of 3700 - all the stats are from the Time article). It comes out to $5.1 BILLION per year, or almost $2 MILLION per life saved. Is this worth the cost? Maybe so, but it's debatable, there are many,many other efforts where lives may be saved for less than $2 million per.
Post a Repsonse