TAKING SIDES ANALYSIS

Name: Adolfo Levano

Course: Human Biology (BIOL 1090)
Book: 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

The author of The Moral Justification for a Compulsory Human Papillomavirus Vaccination
Program is Joseph E. Balog and his major thesis is that requiring a HPV vaccine is recommended
because it reduces death and sickness for those who get the vaccine and is the better than the
alternatives of preventing cervical cancer.
2. Author and major thesis of the No side.
The authors of Assessing Mandatory HPV Vaccination: Who Should Call the Shots? Are Gail
Javitt, Deena Berkowitz, and Lawrence O. Gostin and their major thesis is mandating HPV vaccine is
premature because there is not adequate legal, ethical, or policy support for such a mandate yet.
3. Briefly state in your own words two facts presented by each side.
On the pro-mandate side, they present the fact that approximately 46% of high school kids have
sex and 75% of people have sex before marriage. They also state that CDC says that 3.2 million girls
have STIs and 18.3% of those are HPV.
On the anti-mandate side, they present the fact that the United States has a higher rate of
vaccination with more than half of states reporting that more than 95% of kids are vaccinated. Also, they
claim that all 50 states require kids to get vaccinated before they can attend school based on ACIP
recommendations.
4. Briefly state in your own words two opinions presented by each side.
One of the opinions of the pro-mandate side is that it is not realistic to expect parents to talk to
their kids about sex or expect that abstinence programs to work. They also argue that the rights of
children to not get HPV or cervical cancer because of a vaccine are more important than the parents
rights to decide whether or not they want their kid to have a vaccine.

On the anti-mandate side they point out that mandating this vaccine is the government
overstepping its authority. They also argue that HPV does not qualify as a public health necessity
because of how it is transmitted and the less serious nature of HPV infection and cervical cancer.
5. Briefly identify as many fallacies (lack of reasoning or validity) on the Yes side as you can.
One of the fallacies of the pro-mandate side is that the author repeatedly compared HPV to polio
and other vaccine preventable diseases ignoring the significant differences in transmission and severity.
Also the author makes the argument that it is not just to provide the vaccine to some people and not
others; where I can argue that making the vaccine available and giving people the choice is just as long
as education is provided to all.
6. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the No side as you can.
One of the fallacies of the anti-mandate side is that the authors raise lots of concern about the
safety of the vaccine, whereas it went through clinical trial and received appropriate FDA approval. The
authors dont provide any evidence of the vaccine being unsafe but just pose hypotheticals. Again, the
authors point out that parents who dont like this vaccine could hypothetically opt-out of all vaccines
because they dont have option of just opting-out of one vaccine and it could lead to a serious decline of
all child vaccines. Their conclusion is a fallacy because it could be avoided by simply instituting a policy
that allows parents to opt-out of one vaccine. Also, they raise concerns about Mercks intentions looking to
only make money in this deal, but dont provide any evidence to discredit their science. The makers of
other vaccines also lobby to make their vaccines required so pushing for a mandate doesnt discredit the
benefit that the vaccine can do.
7. All in all, which author impressed you as being the most empirical in presenting his or her
thesis? Why?
The author that impressed me the most was the one that is pro-mandate because he actually
gave evidence of the good the vaccine can do and how many people could be affected positively. On the
other hand, the authors that were anti-mandate presented a number of hypothetical fears and concerns
but fewer facts.
8. Are there any reasons to believe the writers are biased? If so, why do they have these biases?
I personally do not see any biases on either side. They are both writing from different
perspectives and political views of how much the government should be involved in our lives, but it doesnt
appear that either side is affiliated with the pharmaceutical company or stands to make money if the
mandate is or is not approved.
9. Which side (Yes or No) do you personally feel is most correct now that you have reviewed the
material in these articles? Why?

In my opinion, I agree more with the pro-mandate side of the argument

because it has the potential of saving many lives. Also, when I was reviewing the
sources that were used by each author I noticed that the pro-mandate side has
more credible sources in comparison with the anti-mandate side.