Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You're not wrong about ethical considerations, but the CDC operates socially and politically as well.

Back when the vaccine was new, an objection from some parents was that the vaccine might be viewed as a license or permission for their daughters to be promiscuous. There was a substantial headwind.

The public wasn't yet generally aware that HPV could cause head, neck, and anal cancers in men. If a doctor approached a parent back in 2010 and said they wanted to vaccinate their son against head, neck, and anal cancer, that advice wouldn't have been heeded in many cases, and would have cost the CDC some amount of its standing with the public.

When you hear something from the CDC, there's a decent possibility that it's a blend of medical advice that's been compromised with some value judgements that haven't been expressed to the listener.



What is it with people about the false ethics and recommendation around efficacy this and some bs calculus. The downsides are miniscule, the upsides are reduced cancers across the board.

I just had a doctor offer the HPV vaccine for my daughter as optional, 1, I thought we had already gotten it (my bad) because we ask for all the vaccines and 2, anal, throat and neck cancer. There are many scenarios where HPV could be contracted that aren't voluntary. But preventing HPV is.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: