Misc. Ramblings

As I've said before, all sexually transmitted diseases are, and rightly should be, public health issues - not moral ones. Let's treat the disease first and worry about the moral development of individuals secondarily. We do it for lung cancer, even though much of this cancer is caused by people choosing to smoke. We do it for heart disease, even though much of this disease is caused by our poor eating habits. We do it for a host of other so called lifestyle diseases because by moving forward from the Dark Ages model of disease to a more modern one based on rational science, we have improved the lives of all.

But some of you out there may have thought I was overstating things when I've said there are conservative Republicans that would rather have people die of cancer than making the mandatory the use of a vaccine that is almost 100 percent effective. But this article on cervical cancer describes exactly that. These people, who I would call extreme, but who are apparently mainstream Republicans, link morality with what should be a public health issue. The article quoted this statement:

Some people have raised the issue of whether this vaccine may be sending an overall message to teen-agers that, "We expect you to be sexually active,"

I'm not sure what century these people think they are in but I have news for them: their parents were sexually active. And their parents. And their parents before them. I have other news for them - many teenagers are sexually active.

Does abstinence prevent this type of cervical cancer, barring genetic mutation? I'm no doctor but, probably. However, as you can also prevent getting, for example, the measles by avoiding those with such an infection, it is easier and probably safer to be immunized because those that are infected may or may not display symptoms at the time they are infectious.

I believe this is a public health issue and I have to wonder if trying to link this to morality is itself immoral. YMMV. Insert disclaimer here.

Aloha!