RE: [asa] Re: [ASA] Mandatory HPV vaccination

From: SKrogh <>
Date: Wed Feb 07 2007 - 11:28:45 EST

That's fine. Is that the case in this instance? No labor or costs of opting
out were discussed. Is there a cost that would be prohibitive or would it be
something like a nominal filing fee. The entire interview with Perry is now
on the web.
  -----Original Message-----
  From: []On
Behalf Of David Opderbeck
  Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:39 AM
  To: SKrogh
  Subject: Re: [asa] Re: [ASA] Mandatory HPV vaccination

  Right, but the presence of an opt-out right can be a little misleading, in
that it involves some effort and cost to opt out, such that many will not do
so. This kind of regulation has been called "libertarian paternalism," and
it has generated an interesting debate the the behavioral law and economics
literature. See, e.g., here: (for a negative
view) and here: for a
positive one.

  On 2/7/07, SKrogh <> wrote:
    It's not mandatory since you can opt out. Gov Perry explained while
being interviewed at this time on WBAP in Dallas. So it is not really
      -----Original Message-----
      From: []On
Behalf Of Jack
      Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 6:07 AM
      Subject: Re: [asa] Re: [ASA] Mandatory HPV vaccination

      The vaccine costs $120 each for three injections over 6 months. Merck
is in the position to make millions of dollars a year if all states mandate
vaccinations. Various medical societies are recommending the vaccine, but
not mandating it.

      So then Perry, a conservative Christian, who would seem to be someone
opposed to mandating it, passes an excutive order to make it mandatory. It
just so happens that his former chief of staff is now the lobbyist for
Merck. Make of that whatever you will.
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:44 PM
        Subject: [asa] Re: [ASA] Mandatory HPV vaccination

        David Opderbeck wrote:
> I think the problem is the mandatory nature of this executive
> Mandatory vaccinations for schoolchildren are appropriate for
> diseases that are transmitted by ordinary social contact. It seems
> different to me to require that kids be vaccinated against an STD.
It does
> seem like the kind of thing families should decide for themselves.
I could
> see maybe making state funding available for any family that
chooses the
> vaccine.

        Except it isn't mandatory. In Texas (and I think in all the other
states where this is coming up), families can "opt out" if they want.

        A legitimate question that some have raised is the cost-benefit
analysis. The vaccine is pretty expensive (a few hundred dollars as I
recall). The cancer prevented, while certainly tragic, is not extremely
common. So society is spending hundreds of thousands, or maybe millions, of
dollars for each cancer prevented. What are the opportunity costs for that
expense? If insurance is required to cover it, how much will premiums go up
and how many people will go uninsured as a result?
        I'm not advocating any specific answer to these questions, but I
think they need to be asked in such a situation.
        And one could point out that they are already making such a
calculation to some extent by not requiring the vaccination for boys,
although that would also prevent some cancers (albeit a much smaller

        The other legitimate question that people have raised is the active
role of the company that owns the vaccine in lobbying for states to pass
such laws.

        Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado |
        "Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
        attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cat"

  David W. Opderbeck
  MySpace (Music):

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.29/673 - Release Date: 2/6/2007
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 7 11:29:59 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 07 2007 - 11:29:59 EST