In the article “The wrong message on Vaccines” published in Nature, the author criticizes potential presidential candidate, Michelle Bachmann for her statements against vaccination against HPV. While the author makes valid points about the need for a more educated public regarding vaccination, he misdirects his anger. He is afraid of an uneducated public being misinformed by Bachmann and choosing not to get vaccinated leaving the US much like Europe with many rises in disease that have vaccinations. While he makes some interesting criticisms, he is giving the public too little credit, discouraging discussion and places his own sense of duty upon public figures, ignoring the greater issue behind the skepticism.
The author takes issues with Michelle Bachmann’s ignorant statements regarding getting the HPV vaccination. He says that her claims that the vaccination could lead to “mental retardation” were irresponsible. While this is true, she is within her rights to make these claims. While her motives may have been in question, her controversial rhetoric did something positive: it brought to light an issue not discussed enough. She brought to light the questionable nature of the Human Papiloma Virus Vaccine. It is favorable for public figures to talk about salient issues, no matter what the stance because it creates a source of discussion
The author is not giving women enough credit. Bachmann’s comments while probablhy inaccurate, are at least controversial enough to start a discussion where the true facts and research will be examined. We are at an age where information is attainable anyone quickly and simply. From this, one can deduce that it is not the responsibility of public figures to educate us on anything, especially on issues where the information is so easily attained. Consequently, it is not Michelle Bachmann’s responsibility to speak a certain way on the issue of vaccination. It is highly doubtful that one woman’s ignorant comments can leave our public health in jeopardy. If anything were to be in jeopardy as a result of her comments, it would be her political career, not public health.
There are those who, like Bachmann are skeptical of the vaccine. Every woman should educate herself about every drug put in her body. It is only natural and healthy to be skeptical of a new drug that is heavily marketed towards women. Human Papilloma Virus can be spread to anyone, regardless of gender. To prevent this virus from spreading, would it not be just as logical to vaccinate everyone? Women are protected from the virus by taking the vaccination, but one can easily deduce that they are as protected if the people from whom they can contract the virus don’t have it either. The Center for Disease Control has stated that males benefit as much from the vaccine as much as women and yet this vaccine is not being as heavily recommended to men quite as much as it has been pushed upon women. While the HPV vaccine can help prevent cervical cancer, it also prevents genital warts and anal cancer, problems that I doubt men want any more than women. Why is it the responsibility of the female population to bear this vaccine? Why is it the role of women to take a vaccine whose effects have only been studied for six years (at most)? The inequality is pretty severe, and yet women are expected to shut up, take the shot and be thankful. This is not a plea against vaccination, but encouragement in enough skepticism. It is not the Michelle Bachmann’s fault if women do not take the vaccine, regardless of her comments, her media exposure, or popularity. There is enough about this issue that is murky to the public that would cause unease in taking this new medicine.
It is not the duty of a public figure to take on a certain view, or in the author’s words a more “responsible” stance on a topic. Even so, responsibility does not entail falling in line with a scientific community. Like religion (an institution that many consider to hold empirical truth), Science has been wrong before. “Responsibility” means to question what we are told to do, not to shut up and obey. Michelle Bachmann may have questioned the scientific community in a controversial and unfounded way, but the editor has no grounds for putting the responsibility of the public not falling in line on her. Skepticism should not be treated as ignorance, and women shouldn’t be expected to shut up and take a (rather painful) series shots without having their questions reasonably answered. The public must and can educate themselves. We are not the products of our political figures, but rather our political figures are a reflection of us. Perhaps Michelle Bachmann is an over dramatic reflection of the uncertain feeling many women have behind taking this HPV vaccine.
The author takes issues with Michelle Bachmann’s ignorant statements regarding getting the HPV vaccination. He says that her claims that the vaccination could lead to “mental retardation” were irresponsible. While this is true, she is within her rights to make these claims. While her motives may have been in question, her controversial rhetoric did something positive: it brought to light an issue not discussed enough. She brought to light the questionable nature of the Human Papiloma Virus Vaccine. It is favorable for public figures to talk about salient issues, no matter what the stance because it creates a source of discussion
The author is not giving women enough credit. Bachmann’s comments while probablhy inaccurate, are at least controversial enough to start a discussion where the true facts and research will be examined. We are at an age where information is attainable anyone quickly and simply. From this, one can deduce that it is not the responsibility of public figures to educate us on anything, especially on issues where the information is so easily attained. Consequently, it is not Michelle Bachmann’s responsibility to speak a certain way on the issue of vaccination. It is highly doubtful that one woman’s ignorant comments can leave our public health in jeopardy. If anything were to be in jeopardy as a result of her comments, it would be her political career, not public health.
There are those who, like Bachmann are skeptical of the vaccine. Every woman should educate herself about every drug put in her body. It is only natural and healthy to be skeptical of a new drug that is heavily marketed towards women. Human Papilloma Virus can be spread to anyone, regardless of gender. To prevent this virus from spreading, would it not be just as logical to vaccinate everyone? Women are protected from the virus by taking the vaccination, but one can easily deduce that they are as protected if the people from whom they can contract the virus don’t have it either. The Center for Disease Control has stated that males benefit as much from the vaccine as much as women and yet this vaccine is not being as heavily recommended to men quite as much as it has been pushed upon women. While the HPV vaccine can help prevent cervical cancer, it also prevents genital warts and anal cancer, problems that I doubt men want any more than women. Why is it the responsibility of the female population to bear this vaccine? Why is it the role of women to take a vaccine whose effects have only been studied for six years (at most)? The inequality is pretty severe, and yet women are expected to shut up, take the shot and be thankful. This is not a plea against vaccination, but encouragement in enough skepticism. It is not the Michelle Bachmann’s fault if women do not take the vaccine, regardless of her comments, her media exposure, or popularity. There is enough about this issue that is murky to the public that would cause unease in taking this new medicine.
It is not the duty of a public figure to take on a certain view, or in the author’s words a more “responsible” stance on a topic. Even so, responsibility does not entail falling in line with a scientific community. Like religion (an institution that many consider to hold empirical truth), Science has been wrong before. “Responsibility” means to question what we are told to do, not to shut up and obey. Michelle Bachmann may have questioned the scientific community in a controversial and unfounded way, but the editor has no grounds for putting the responsibility of the public not falling in line on her. Skepticism should not be treated as ignorance, and women shouldn’t be expected to shut up and take a (rather painful) series shots without having their questions reasonably answered. The public must and can educate themselves. We are not the products of our political figures, but rather our political figures are a reflection of us. Perhaps Michelle Bachmann is an over dramatic reflection of the uncertain feeling many women have behind taking this HPV vaccine.
No comments:
Post a Comment