With the recent doing and undoing of a mandatory cervical cancer vaccine for teenage girls in Texas, the same looks to be happening in the country of India.Girls between the ages of 11 and 14 would be vaccinated against the virus that causes cervical cancer (HPV) if the new Indian program is implemented by the government there.
Is this just the latest attempt by the western pharmaceutical companies to "mandate" vaccinations for profit purposes of is there really a need for this? With an estimated 70% of cervical cancer being attributed to HPV, is mandatory vaccinations the answer? In the U.S. state of Texas, the term "mandatory" did not sit right with constituents.
1. Sounds to me like corporations making money, but I don't understand why anyone WOULDN'T want to be vaccinated. I guess the term "mandatory" is a bit too aggressive. The companies should get the schools to call them "free" but with the actual costs being reflected the school's other programs.
At any rate, looks like they've stopped trying to force their way into the public school system:
http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/85493?c_id=wom-bc-mam
--Matthew from the Health desk at TheNewsRoom.com
Posted at 3:44PM on Jun 20th 2007 by Matthew