The HPV vaccine should be mandatory.

I appreciate my opponent's responses, and will now conclude by giving a set of reasons why I should win this debate based off of answering three key questions: Question 1: Would mandated HPV vaccinations improve health care outcomes for individuals? Question 2: Are any of the alternatives presented by Con more reasonable or effective for producing improved outcomes? Question 3: Is it morally correct for these vaccines to be mandated? So let's start by answering that first question. I think I've definitively provided the data to show that this would dramatically reduce the prevalence of HPV. My opponent agrees that these vaccinations are highly effective, so we have no doubt that more people receiving them would reduce the incidence of HPV. The only doubts he throws into this are a) lives will still be lived into 50's and 60's, b) most of the people who get these infections won't get cancer, and c) that some of the people who get them will take appropriate measures and survive. Even if one were to accept all of that, you're still preferring my argument. a) Ending someone's life early, even if it's at 50 or 60, is a negative outcome. No one should accept the idea that since their lives were, presumably, going to be cut short by something else anyway, they shouldn't have a chance to live them. b) There are still over 21,000 people a year who are getting cancer here in the U.S. from HPV. Those are still 21,000 people who would rather not have to go through surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy to treat it, causing them long term harms if they're lucky, and being completely ineffective if they're not. Over 4,000 people a year die from this. That's not a small outcome. c) I've already stated why many people don't take these measures, and how even if they do, they're still threatened by these same cancers, just at a slightly lower likelihood. In his latest post, he asks me what good health policy is, in my estimation. I figured this doesn't need defining, though I disagree with the definition he's brought. "Life span is how long we live. Health span is how long we live with the best possible health."[1] In other words, it's not just about length of life. It's about quality as well. So I find it somewhat absurd that Con would argue that improving the lifespan of males through castration is an improvement to health policy when it forces permanent physical harm on patients and completely removes their capacity to reproduce, both of which dramatically affect a person's quality of life, both mentally and physically. Prevention of HPV ensures that no one has to suffer the painful warts that can sometimes require surgical intervention. It ensures that no one has to suffer the emotional, physical and financial stresses of these cancer diagnoses. Con can minimize these all he wants, but if all he can do is point to alternatives that would dramatically harm the quality of life of every male in this country, then it's not sufficient. But I'll get into that more on the next question. Onto question 2. I'll list the alternatives he provides: a) Patients undergoing screens regularly and changing diets b) Male patients getting castrated I've already spent time responding to both of these, but I'll quickly summarize, and also address the moral arguments on the latter. In the first case, he is essentially arguing these alternatives without providing a means to fund them. It's interesting that he targets the moral failings of my arguments by stating that I force vaccines on these people, and yet spends much of this arguments stating that the best preventative measures available require significant amounts of money to make possible. The worst I do is relegate the poor to having to receive these vaccinations. Con relegates 50% of the population to getting HPV, and tens of thousands to getting the associated cancers. To finish up on castration, he argues that the same moral benefits of HPV vaccination apply to castration. He's right that the castration program would reduce the ability to spread this disease as well, though it doesn't meet any moral standards on quality of life. A shot in the arm is not equivalent to castration in terms of harms. As for his "it's nothing new" argument, there is a very long list of harms associated with eugenics that his link actually covers in part. Introducing a slew of other problems while erasing some doesn't make it reasonable. We recognize a specific moral harm that comes from their application, and view past applications of castration as inherently harmful. We do not recognize the same of FDA-approved vaccines. Lastly, let's get to the third question of morality. Con provides absolutely no argument as to the harms of either Gardasil or Cervarix. The most he can do is provide two links from the FDA stating when they were approved. He might have read more of the links he posted, because they provide specific monitoring systems as well: "FDA and CDC closely monitor the safety of all vaccines through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS receives unconfirmed reports of possible side effects following the use of Gardasil and all vaccines licensed in the U.S. VAERS reports are regularly reviewed for safety concerns or trends of adverse events (possible side effects)." This is a pretty extensive monitoring program, and it's been ongoing for 7 and 4 years, respectively, since these drugs came to market. There are even two other large scale programs the CDC collaborates with for monitoring market drugs. [2] And that's just after - Con completely ignores the extensive clinical trials each company went through to get these drugs to market, which required almost a decade of studies both cases, and the tens of thousands of people tested with both of them over that time. Their symptoms were carefully monitored over the course of these studies. [3][4] Don't buy the idea that I'm assuming health risks on any terms. The worst case is that one of these vaccines ends up having adverse effects, in which case, the government would simply purchase and utilize the other one. He is right that this is three separate shots, but whether it's three or one, it's not a major loss to autonomy. Nor, and I'd like everyone reading to note this, has he detailed in any way why this harm should matter. He hasn't stated why a loss to individual autonomy is harmful in the slightest. Con has argued this matter-of-factly, but I would state that any harm he could possibly provide pales in comparison to the harms to others that I've detailed in my arguments. The remainder of his arguments are not central to this debate. It doesn't matter how HPV is contracted. The standard as a vaccination is still there. I already responded to his argumentation about the poor partially, but remember, he's no saint here. In his world, the current one, the poor are the most vulnerable to HPV. I would provide vaccinations free of charge. Without Con providing some measure of how, specifically, that loss of autonomy is harmful, anyone should prefer a world in which they are forced to have better health outcomes to one in which they are forced to endure worse ones. It's plain to see that my argument is superior in answering each of these questions definitively. Health-wise, I've provided the best option that meets the criteria of both extension and quality of life. Morality-wise, mine is the only argument that's detailed distinct and unique harms incurred by one side and not the other. Con's alternatives either leave the problem unsolved or ignore serious breaches of human rights. Vote Pro. 1. http://www.aspeninstitute.org...- 2. http://www.fda.gov... 3. http://clinicaltrials.gov... 4. http://www.thelancet.com...