The HPV vaccine should be mandatory.

Efforts like these will, I'm sure, make this debate more interesting for both of us and anyone else reading. Before I launch into some rebuttal, I would first like to point out one thing. None of my opponent's arguments generate any offense for him in this debate. Each of them is a mitigating point, either reducing the health impacts of vaccination, or arguing (however briefly) that people are capable of making these decisions for themselves. While he is free to provide some offense in his next post, this means that even if someone judging this were to find merit in his points, my arguments would still have some impact, while the harms of my position don't appear to be too troubling. With that, I will get into the rebuttal. Con argues that contracting HPV mainly happens after the 20th birthday. 1. The paper citation isn't quite as clear. For one, it's only a study of females, not males. Therefore, it's only a study of roughly half of the population. As their rates of acquisition are rapid and their prevalence is high, these are rather important. [1] Moreover, other studies such as this have shown that, while a spike in incidence among populations in their late 20's and early 30's may be higher than other age groups, the incidence of oncogenic (or cancer causing) HPV is actually pretty much the same across all age groups, at least for men. [2] The paper concludes that some 45% of women aged 20-24 have the infection, prevalence isn't all that small in ages 14-19, with almost 25% of that population infected. I wouldn't discount such a large portion of the population, especially since they still make up a very sizable portion of the population and are sexually active in many cases. And since it doesn't specifically split up oncogenic and non-oncogenic, we can't assess the dangers involved using this study. 2. It's just not a very convincing argument. Yes, people tend to get HPV more often in their early 20's, but the reason is because some people acquired it earlier and infected others during that time. Vaccination and anti-viral therapy are not one in the same, and someone who is already infected won't see any benefit from vaccination. That means that person can still spread the virus. Getting to them before the ages where they're most likely to be infected is essential, otherwise you lose out completely on the benefits. 3. 18 is also an adult age in this country, and no less so than 20 under the law. A person's capability to weigh the pros and cons for themselves doesn't mean that they have any right to do so for other people. That person's partner doesn't get that choice. If the sexually active person in question decides not to get screened, then there is no way for their partner(s) to know that they're infected. And as such, they're constantly under danger of exposure to the virus. It was not their choice to do so. They didn't have autonomy in deciding whether or not to get infected. Their children certainly don't get that choice either. Con argues that HPV is unlikely to cause harm On this, we at least partially agree. HPV isn't going to be dangerous to everyone, or even a majority, of the people who get it. However, looking back at round 2, I've given specific numbers, from the CDC as well, as to the types of cancers caused by HPV and the number of people estimated to be affected. Even if we remove cervical cancers, that's still over 15,000 people who are infected with HPV getting cancer in this nation alone. I don't think you can brush off those numbers. Yes, most infections are cleared by the patients within 2 years, and yet there's a staggering number of people who have them. 50%, to be precise. At any one time, approximately 20 million Americans have such an infection. [3] Whether that's reinfection or infection of new patients, I don't know, but that is a staggeringly large number of people who are infected, the vast majority without their knowledge or permission. And they all have the cancer risk. Small as it may be, that's not something I would call a minimal threat. Con says cervical cancer is not a very big deal While I don't doubt the veracity of your sources (unfortunately, neither of them work for some reason, but since it's SEER and the CDC, I'll trust that it's accurate), I think you're underestimating the importance of this particular disease. Yes, it's highly preventable, if someone goes through the proper screening tests and spots it early. While death is less likely for this cancer type as a result of early treatment, neither the treatment nor the death rate are of negligible importance. The best case scenario for these women is that surgical intervention works, and the cancer is successfully removed with minimal damage. Many, however, have to undergo chemotherapies that are nearly certain to cause terrible, long lasting side effects. Those who are even less lucky will have to undergo radiation therapies, which are guaranteed to cause other harms. [4] And that's the physical burden. The monetary costs are shockingly high, impossible for most people to cover, especially while they're out of work to get treatment. [5] The annual direct medical costs alone amount to more than $6 billion in this country. [6] But let's not forget that I've already given the data in the second round about death tolls from this cancer type. 4,000 is not insignificant. It doesn't matter whether they would die of other causes later, it matters whether this is the cause. It doesn't suddenly become reasonable if we cut someone's life short by a few years instead of a few decades. As for the mentality that it was essentially their fault for not going through the proper precautions, I've got multiple responses. One, all of those precautions require money and time. The money element is especially demanding since these vaccinations are expensive, diet changes normally require eating more produce (which is also more expensive), and the screenings also cost. By leaving it up to them, you leave out the poor. Two, focusing on diet, there are people who simply don't have a choice as to what they eat based on other conditions. They're relegated to not using this option. Three, focusing on both screening and diet, these are not catch-alls. These women are still at risk even with good dieting an screening, and will still have to deal with the very real possibility of cervical cancer. These just reduce the risk and increase the efficacy of treatment. Four, it's up to them whether or not they choose to protect themselves from danger, but not whether they get to decide the fates of others they have sex with. The choice of transmission is not theirs to make. Con says vaccines are effective enough to warrant some not getting them. I really don't get this point. The vaccines are close to 100% effective, so we shouldn't use the highly effective vaccines on individuals who could care less? They can still transmit it, can't they? They can still affect the rights of others, can't they? Its high efficacy should be a reason to use it. No one should have access to rights that allow them to transmit a disease with impunity to people who are either too young to get the vaccine for free (i. e. under 18 in this case), too young to get it at all or too immunocompromised to get the vaccine. These people shouldn't be put at risk just for individual liberties to be upheld for someone who doesn't want a shot. And with that, I await my opponent's rebuttal. 1. . http://jid.oxfordjournals.org... 2. . http://jid.oxfordjournals.org... 3. . http://www.hhs.gov... 4. . http://www.cancer.gov... 5. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 6. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...