According to the American National cancer institute thee widespread HPV vaccination has the potential to reduce cancer deaths by two thirds in the whole world. The vaccination would also reduce the anxieties related to papa tests and its follow up procedures. The current HPV vaccine is able to protect two HPV types i.e. 16 and 18 which cause about 70% of the world cervical cancer cases. Children acquire knowledge about sexually transmitted illnesses before they start engaging in sexual activities. It is good that they be warned about the consequences of the diseases. It is also important appropriate precaution be taken to protect the children from the diseases. HPV vaccination is one way of protecting the children from the infection. (Bruess & Greenberg 2008)
There are moral issues which are raised concerning the use of HPV vaccine. The vaccine is seen as a way of enhancing immorality in the society. Vaccinating teens against the virus acts as a way of allowing them to engage in sexual activity at early age. This is because they are assured that they cannot be infected by the virus. This is seen as encouraging immorality among the young people. The young people are introduced to sexuality when they are too young. They increase the chances of getting other sexually transmitted diseases as the vaccine does not prevent transmission other diseases (Lo, 2009). It is wrong for the society to put its subject into such danger. On religious grounds this is also seen as a way of encouraging immorality which is a sin. On this issue its good to measure where more benefit lies. In as long as HPV Vaccine encourages immorality, it also creates a healthy society.
High level of herd immunity protects all members of the society. It protects even those who cannot have the vaccination because of medical problems. This mass protection justifies the reason for compulsory vaccination of the disease. Minors have a right to be sheltered from infectious diseases. Children who do not have the vaccinations have high risk of getting infected with this illness (Palefsky, 2002).The society should play a leading role in safeguarding the children from this illness. Opposing views from the religious point of views puts the children under a high risk of getting infected with the illness. HPV vaccination plays a bigger role in protecting the transmission of the illness than the policies which rely on persuasion and education. This view justifies the importance of the vaccination to school children. There are also those who argue that the vaccine is supposed to be given to those people who are actively engaging in sexual activities rather than children. They argue that HPV vaccine introduce children to issues that are beyond their psychological development. This may enhance them to engage in sexual activities as they already understand that they are protected. They do this with lack of knowledge that there are some other sexually transmitted diseases that they may get infected. This brings the importance of sexual education at the tender age so that they have full information about their sexuality.
Religious extremists hold that the vaccination allows people to escape the repercussions of their actions. They would escape the consequences of their sexual sin. In order to prevent the infections girls need to be vaccinated before they start engaging in sexual active life. This is a problem in many nations as the religious conservatists hold that absistence is the best protection against any sexually transmitted illnesses. Giving the vaccination to young mothers would act like a license of engaging in premarital sex. The opposers also argue that the vaccination make people to engage more in sexual activities (Murthy & Smith, 2009). As a result of this they put themselves under more risk of getting other sexually transmitted diseases which do not have vaccines for example HIV. There is also moral opposition in regard to HPV vaccine. Morals conservatives argue that the vaccine promote teenage sexual promiscuity. This is because people feel that they are protected since they cannot get infected with this disease. Promiscuity increases not just to the unmarried but also to the married people.
Another argument that is brought forward is that the vaccine promotes promiscuous behavior among young people. This is because they feel that they are protected from infection of the illness. They thus do not put much precaution in engaging in sexual activities. This is dangerous as may lead to the children being infected with other sexually transmitted diseases. Their main point is not to do away with the vaccine but they claim that it is subjected to the wrong people. They hold that the vaccine is most appropriate to drug users and those who engage in sexual activities but not children. According to their views children should be taught on absistence but not vaccination. They argue that vaccination the children they set bad example and also prepare children psychologically to start engaging into sexual activities. According to Hal Wallis a Dallas gynaecologist the best option a person should have is to abstain in order to protect himself or herself from getting infected with the disease. The other option is to stick and be faithful to one sexual partner. They oppose the vaccination because it entails prevention of a disease that can be avoided by having good sexual behavior (Lo, 2009).
It is also very fascinating that a parent would opt to provide a child with a potentially life saving vaccine because of the fear that he or she might have of hastening a child’s sexual activity.