HPV Vaccine

Merck & Co. have a drug on the market that has the potential to be a hot-button political item. The Governor of Texas decided to bypass politics, as ABC Reports:

Bypassing the Legislature altogether, Republican Gov. Rick Perry issued an order
Friday making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls get vaccinated
against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

The article reports that beginning in September 2008, Texas girls aged 11 and 12 will be required to get the vaccine, and further, the government would provide the vaccine to those who don't have health insurance and can't afford it. Many conservative groups are wary of the drug, feeling it will lead to greater sexual promiscuity.

There is another bit of interest burried further within this article. Specifically, the bit of interest relates to the governor's interests:

Perry has ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.

The governor also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.

The whole case here is quite interesting. For one thing, it interests me as a Merck shareholder. This does raise questions, though. I cannot help but think that the governor grossly overstepped his bounds to legislate a mandate on the population at large while bypassing the legislature. Why bother to have a legislature for that matter? One also cannot help but wonder whether this tells us something about the governorship of Texas as a means of ascent to the White House.

Reactions

But really, this is a bit tyrranical. The governor has dictated a law of himself which could have consequences. Interestingly, there are not only religious but also philosophical objections which are allowed for refusing vaccination in Texas, but nonetheless, it is incredibly alarming to see that the governor could make such a decision on his own. With the legislature, at least, the process ensures that the bill would be debated and discussed among state representatives, and those who objected could have made sure of such a thing. If it's that important, then couldn't parents get their kids this vaccine on their own? Or do people not get vaccines unless they are required to by law?

As for the bit regarding the moral implications, those are a bit ridiculous. For one thing, HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases are much more well-known in contemporary society than cervical cancer in the first place; how many people knew that this is largely caused by a sexually transmitted virus. The drug is not a birth control drug either. Further, there are plenty of other arguments that can be made regarding safe sex and abstinence, etc, that go beyond this, such as personal morality, emotional health, and the law of diminishing marginal returns.

Back to this particular case, I also find it particularly alarming that Merck is engaging in bribery as a way to do business. A politician can take a bribe - here, a campaign contribution - and be bought. But it's hard to judge Merck, though, as it is in a way getting revenge on the government. The Food and Drug Administration requires testing of all new drugs that come onto the market, requiring proof that they are "safe and effective." These testing requirements go beyond what is necessary to determine whether or not the drug is a good one, and all they give the drug maker is the right to make the drug. The FDA can screw up and approve dangerous drugs, but instead of the FDA, it is then the drug company which must pay the piper. The FDA requires extensive testing and then does not back it up at all.

So Merck just needs to make some money. So all they figure they have to do is to get the state to require it, and perhaps even pay for it. This helps to make the drugs in question far more profitable, which is after all the sole social responsibility of any corporation. This helps to offset the costs endured in the FDA testing stage, which cost not only money but also a lot of time.

The drug is a good drug, and lobbying by Merck is exactly what one should expect, as it is a very effective way to offset the research costs. I wouldn't want to limit Merck's ability to lobby, etc, without also limiting the power the FDA holds over drug companies, and I wouldn't count on either happening anytime soon. What I don't get is why Merck actually closed down a little on Friday.

Additionally

1) Here's some reading with tons of info on HPV. The Center for Disease Control has a lot of this type of information. One thing I saw:

HPV infection can occur in both male and female genital areas that are covered
or protected by a latex condom, as well as in areas that are not covered. While
the effect of condoms in preventing HPV infection is unknown, condom use has
been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease.

Condom use can help, but it is very interesting to note that areas not covered by a condom could be so affected by the disease.

2) Here's a bit on required vaccinations. Vaccines for children are generally required, particularly for highly contagious diseases. Some vaccines, like flu shots, and other treatments for adults, are optional.