TAKING SIDES ANALYSIS

Name: Miranda Paige

Course: Biology 1090 Human Biology
Book: Biology 1090, Human Biology Taking Sides Readings
Issue number: 11
Title of issue: Should Vaccination for HPV Be Mandated For Teenage Girls?
1. Author and major thesis of the Yes side:
Joseph E Balog; That having the vaccination can be justified on moral, scientific, and public health grounds.
2. Author and major thesis of the No side:
Gail Javitt, Deena Berkowitz, and Lawrence O Gostin; There is limited data and experience and HPV doesnt
pose imminent and significant risk to others and mandating it would be premature.
3. Briefly state in your own words two facts presented by each side.
In the Yes side, its not solely for the purpose of preventing STIs, but also cervical cancer, as it has a 70%
reduction rate of cervical cancer. Also, HPV vaccines arent long and the efficacy isnt well either. They also
stated that HPV exposure isnt related to school attendance, and the more you go to school, you dont have
more of a chance to contract the virus.
On the No side, long term safety is unknown as well as the effectiveness of the vaccine. And sexual behavior is
involved in transmission not all children are at risk because many kids arent sexually active.
4. Briefly state in your own words two opinions presented by each side.
On the Yes side, they said that having a vaccination program will better serve populations that are at great risk
for it and they need health care and social justice. They also said its a valuable tool for fighting cancer.
On the No side, they said that the programs will make them targets for other vaccines. They also said that the
HPV vaccine doesnt satisfy the two principles of reasonable relationships and public health necessity.
5. Briefly identify as many fallacies (lack of reasoning or validity) on the Yes side as you can.
The consequences of the rights, autonomy, desires are indirect to the parents.
Vaccine prevents cancer and genital warts, but also raises moral, social and scientific concerns.
Reduces the need for intrusive treatments required for cervical cancer.
It will ally morals to offer all citizens equal access to reduce harm, which will be valuable.
6. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the No side as you can.
Trials cannot reveal all possible adverse events relating to a product.
Liberal opt out provisions will take care of coercions and distrust issues.

All children who attend school are equally at risk of both transmitting and contracting the disease.
May or may not be captured to be a religious or philosophical opt out provision.
The relationship between the governments objectives of presenting cervical cancer in women and the means
used to achieve it lacks rationality.

7. All in all, which author impressed you as being the most empirical in presenting his or her thesis? Why?
I think that empirically, the No side impressed me. They gave some incidences that were interesting to read
about and it gave insight that the testing hasnt all been successful in the past for it to work efficiently now.
8. Are there any reasons to believe the writers are biased? If so, why do they have these biases?
Both of them are biased, but they both gave good reasoning for the opposition. They have biases because they
dont want to admit their reasoning could be flawed.
9. Which side (Yes or No) do you personally feel is most correct now that you have reviewed the material in
these articles? Why?

I feel the Yes side is more correct because it does decrease the risk for cervical cancer at an early age
and that is a good way of reducing the rates of cancer in our society. I feel their evidence was good, and
it gave me a good perspective for the opposing side.