Vaccinating girls against the human papillomavirus (HPV) before they are sexually active appears to be successful in protecting them against cervical cancer, however, a Johns Hopkins University researcher and health policy expert warns it would be ill-advised to mandate vaccinations at this time.
Gail Javitt, JD, MPH, is a Research Scholar at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics and the Law and Policy Director at the Institute¹s Genetics and Public Policy Center. In a recently published paper in the Summer 2008 issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Javitt and her co-authors argue state-mandates requiring girls to be vaccinated for HPV as a condition for school attendance would not currently be supported by legal and ethical justifications.
The HPV vaccine, sold as Gardasil in the U.S., is intended to prevent 4 strains of the human papillomavirus. HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the world. Two strains are known to cause 70% of cervical cancer cases and two other strains are associated with 90% of genital warts cases.
While the HPV vaccine represents a significant public health advance, the article argues it is inappropriate at this time to mandate the vaccine for the following reasons: the vaccine is relatively new, and long-term safety and effectiveness in the general population is unknown; outcomes of those voluntarily vaccinated should be followed for several years before mandates are imposed; the HPV vaccine does not represent a public health necessity of the type that has justified previous vaccine mandates; the economic consequences of mandating HPV are significant and could have a negative impact on financial support for other vaccines as well as other public health programs.
Javitt and her colleagues argue that during the current climate regarding vaccines and their effects on children, state-mandated vaccinations are under a higher degree of scrutiny from parents, especially the HPV vaccine.