Futh 1

Dan Futh
Ryan Greer
Biology 1090
April 25, 2016
HPV Vaccinations
1. On the yes side of the issue, the opinion of the author, Joseph E. Balog, indicates that
compulsory HPV vaccination program appears to be ethical permissible.
2. On the other side of the issue, authors Gail Javitt, Deanna Berkowitz and Lawrence O
Gostin said that mandating the HPV vaccination within the U. S's low-risk standing is
premature.
3. Joseph E. Balog, on the yes side, provides factual insight on sexually active teens within the
United States, which identifies the young group most at risk for HPV, as it is the most
common in adolescents- especially females. Demonstrating 3.2 million females adolescent
have contracted STI, and 18.3% of them are infected with HVP. An additional fact presented
further along in the reading indicates that HPV has reduced by 70% due to HPV
vaccinations, along with efficient screenings and treatments, which have contributed to the
reduction of HPV by 80%.
Authors on the no side point out facts about parent's vaccination preferences for daughters
under the age of 18, which 72% of parents are in favor of student health classes to provide
information on HPV, 61% of them prefer HPV vaccination, 42% believe the vaccine should
be included with the required adolescent vaccinations. They also fact the that all mandated
vaccinations are in prevention of the highly contagious diseases with significant morbidity
and mortality which does not apply to HPV as the more threatening cancer-causing strains
of HPV are low within the U.S.
4. As the yes side associates with a deontological opinion, Mr. Balog believes that the
utilitarians approach is not realistic enough to eliminate the real harm of HPV in
comparison to the effectiveness of the vaccinations. Opposed to the no sides utilitarians
perspective, that is concerned about social and concerns costs of the matter. The yes side
believes that mandating the vaccine can eliminate the possibility of adolescents contracting
cervical cancer, which to them, is greater than the cost of the vaccine.
According to the No sides opinion, the mandating of the 3step HPV vaccine approach is too
much coverage of vaccinations to require, and people may opt-out of other vaccinations,
which could begin the spread of the contagious diseases. So implementing screenings, along
with offering people the opt-in technique would be a much more successful approach for
the vaccine.
5. On the Yes side, Mr. Balog reveals fallacies about the alternatives approach on HPV when he
stated, [the alternative side] opposing vaccinations that can reduce real and probable harm
or simply failing to provide them- is an act of malevolence. After he previously admitted
that the alternative side provides the vaccination to those whom voluntarily request it, and in

Futh 2
response, argued that such measures were not enough because parents are granted the
decision for their child to receive the vaccination, and then used such examples to suggest a
compulsory approach.
6. Although the No side is opposed to mandating the HPV vaccination, I was about skeptical
about their actual opinion on the vaccine itself due to misleading statements as the authors
discussed their belief that the vaccine is a great public health advance and the opt-in
approach will produce greater coverage among the adolescents. This suggested to me that
the vaccine is indeed effective, and worth receiving. Yet, their argument was based on the
lack of knowledge about the vaccines effectiveness, and the virus not imposing as highly
contagious nor does it place people at immediate risk, which is why it should not be
mandated.
7. Following both sides of the issue, I believe the no side is mostly correct. Although, I
believe HPV is very serious as it can lead to cancer. I agree with the opposition of
mandating the HPV vaccination due to cost, and HPVs low pose of immediate danger on
adolescents within the U.S. I also believe that it can be detected if parents and children
receive more information to become proactive and take cautious measures such as
screenings but can decide to receive the vaccination for further protection.
8. I was most impressed with Joseph E. Balogs approach on the issue. Opposed to Gail Javitt,
Deena Berkowitz, and Lawrence O. Gostins no approach on this issue, Balog was most
empirical as he relied mostly on information and research about the vaccinations factual
success to defend his thesis and impose suggestions as to why HPV should be mandated.
9. In comparison to the yes side, the authors on the no side were less empirical when
supporting their argument that the mandating of the HPV vaccination is premature. The
authors used very little statistics, and referred to other credible sources opinions that were
parallel to their own. Respectfully, I believe Mr. Balogs accusation of the no side
approaching the issue with a utilitarian perspective, which is the reason why they appeared
bias as they based their argument on opinions.