HPV mandates and more in JAMA and NEJM
There is a lot of discussion on HPV vaccination and mandates in recent issues of the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association.
In the May 2 JAMA, Lawrence Gostin -- a professor of health law at Georgetown -- and Catherine DeAngelis -- the editor of JAMA -- wrote an editorial titled "Mandatory HPV Vaccination: Public Health vs Private Wealth." Gostin and DeAngelis reject mandates for HPV at this time, referring to any use of state mandates as "a last resort." Specifically, they point to questions regarding cost/payment, long-term safety, injury compensation, and the fact that HPV is not "a highly infectious airborne disease" to support their argument against mandates.
The latest NEJM includes seven pieces on HPV vaccines, including two commentaries, two reports, two editorials, and a letter. All are available for free here. Of note is the commentary by Alta Charo -- professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin -- titled "Politics, Parents, and Prophylaxis -- Mandating HPV Vaccination in the United States." Charo argues in favor of state mandates, pointing to the easy-to-secure exemptions available in every state in which a mandate has been explored. With essentially any parent objecting the vaccine having the ability to receive such an exemption, the overall merits of a state mandate greatly outweigh the slight inconvenience the exemption process imposes on parents seeking it, she suggests.
Also of interest is "Introducting HPV Vaccine in Developing Countries -- Key Challenges and Issues" by Agosti and Goldie. The authors point to availability, access, and cost concerns related to the international implementation of HPV vaccination programs.
In the May 2 JAMA, Lawrence Gostin -- a professor of health law at Georgetown -- and Catherine DeAngelis -- the editor of JAMA -- wrote an editorial titled "Mandatory HPV Vaccination: Public Health vs Private Wealth." Gostin and DeAngelis reject mandates for HPV at this time, referring to any use of state mandates as "a last resort." Specifically, they point to questions regarding cost/payment, long-term safety, injury compensation, and the fact that HPV is not "a highly infectious airborne disease" to support their argument against mandates.
The latest NEJM includes seven pieces on HPV vaccines, including two commentaries, two reports, two editorials, and a letter. All are available for free here. Of note is the commentary by Alta Charo -- professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin -- titled "Politics, Parents, and Prophylaxis -- Mandating HPV Vaccination in the United States." Charo argues in favor of state mandates, pointing to the easy-to-secure exemptions available in every state in which a mandate has been explored. With essentially any parent objecting the vaccine having the ability to receive such an exemption, the overall merits of a state mandate greatly outweigh the slight inconvenience the exemption process imposes on parents seeking it, she suggests.
Also of interest is "Introducting HPV Vaccine in Developing Countries -- Key Challenges and Issues" by Agosti and Goldie. The authors point to availability, access, and cost concerns related to the international implementation of HPV vaccination programs.
feeds.feedburner.com/vaccineethics