Fatima Kamara

Taking side 2
HPV vaccines

1. The major thesis of the YES side relates that a principles-based approach to moral

reasoning leads to the conclusion that compulsory HBV vaccinations for teenage girls can

be justified on moral, scientific and public health grounds.

2. The NO side emphasizes that, given the limited data and experience, and the fact that

HPV does not pose imminent risk to others, mandating HPV vaccine is premature.

3. Two of the facts that motivate the YES side for mandating the HPV vaccination are:

- HPV is linked to the cancer of the cervix, which is the second most common cancer

among women globally.

- A statistics in the United States reveals that 46% of high school students have sexual

intercourse with another person by the time they graduate and 75% of young people

have sexual relationship before they marry.

4. Two of the facts that rouse the NO side concern for not mandating the vaccination are:

- Lack of long-term data on safety and effectiveness of the Vaccination

- HPV is transmitted through sexual activity; therefore it is not directly related to

5. The YES side stands on the principle that no imminent harm exists. In addition they also

believe that the utility of a compulsory vaccine in preventing harm is greater than the

utility of preserving individual liberty and choice.

6. The NO side thinks that the HPV vaccine is not a public necessity compared to others in

the past. They think the government would overreach the use of its power by mandating

the vaccination which is even expensive.

7. The fallacy I mention in the YES side arguments is the following statement: opposing

vaccinations that can reduce real and probable harm or simply failing to provide themis

an act of malevolence. I do not believe that the purpose of the No side is to oppose to the

vaccination. They are just not agreeing with the fact of making it compulsory.

8. The NO side advanced that not all children who attend school are at equal risk of

exposure of the virus since no all of them are engaged in the sexual activity. But is it not

already a risk of being in an environment where 46% of students have sexual intercourse

9. After reviewing the material in this article, I feel more like being with the NO side, even

though the YES side still makes sense to me. I think being aware of the disease and its

consequences should be enough for a rational individual to take his precautions, since

there is already other preventive and efficient method as screening.

10. For the Yes side authors (Joseph E. Balog) that I found less empirical, I think he might

be biased for his definition of ethics and moral. Even though their definition is objective,

they reality reveals that they may be subjective at some points. Also since the vaccination

is a private innovation, that might question the real intention of company.