What do y'all think about this?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/...vical_cancer_4

Compulsory? Necessary? What about the Governor bypassing the legislature?

[Jonathan]

So the Texan governor bypasses legislature to make vaccinations against cervical cancer mandatory for young girls.

I think the biggest problem is that the parents are forced to pay for the vaccinations. The vaccine is quite expensive and perhaps some families wouldn't be able to afford it. Had the state paid for the vaccinations, it would have been a completely different thing.

The papillomavirus is transmitted mainly via sexual contact and it is very understandble that conservative Christians and others who encourage sexual abstinence aren't willing to pay for vaccinations. What a waste of money.

Sister/Cousin/Aunt - it would have been good if you had mentioned in the thread title and in your post what this thread is about. "What do y'all think" isn't that informative

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Thank you Jonathan, note taken.

And you can call me Sis, or Earl (which Leif favors).

Should have chosen my handle more carefully. Too much for anyone to type.

[Count Comfect]

I agree with some of Jonathan's objections to this idea - that it is expensive, and therefore as a cost issue it shouldn't be thrown onto parents suddenly, and the state should probably pay for it partly at least.

But I disagree with the angle about parental control over their children's medical concerns - this is no more of a burden on that control than any other vaccine, and I believe requiring vaccines has serious public health interest for the state. As for the religious right who believe that it encourages sexual promiscuity, a) the virus is not transmitted ONLY by sexual contact and b) much better safe than sorry. It's the same way we have hepatitis vaccinations, which are also often STD; you may believe that your child should be abstinent, and I certainly have no problem with that or with your child in fact abstaining from sex, but if your child chooses not to do so, despite your best intentions (which studies show, alas, to be quite likely), I'd rather have that child not have cervical cancer come with the sex.

In sum, I think that if some state funding is provided for this requirement, it's fine, but if it's a whole financial burden, not so.

[The Gaffer]

This is an interesting article.

It's unusual for "staff writer" articles about new health interventions to stress the amount of lobbying work done by pharmas.

Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass state laws across the country mandating Gardasil for girls as young as 11 or 12.

While I agree that this is a concern, it's interesting that it is being stressed in this way. The same (or much, much more) could be said for any new treatment. Normally, journos are more than happy to pass on the latest "miracle cure" stories churned out by the pharmaco PR machine with no discernible critical assessment. Now they are getting all cynical on us. Why this story, why now?

The other interesting aspect is how this might conflict which his "base support", which is religious. I can't believe there is serious controversy around preventing cervical cancer, but assuming there is, perhaps it's an example of how the religious right can be a fickle master for politicians. We saw similar things over the stem cell research issue.

The second one provides the answer to the first, I suspect.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

And you can call me Sis, or Earl (which Leif favors).

Should have chosen my handle more carefully. Too much for anyone to type.

*looks at name*
Are you a Gilbert and Sullivan fan?

[inked]

It took a while, but I found the perfect thread for this! The What Do You All Think About This thread ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html?ITO=1490

"Police have been ordered to stop anyone taking in part in illegal outdoor sex being abused or verbally taunted as it can cause them to suffer post traumatic stress.

An extraordinary new Hate Crime Guidance Manual has been handed to officers telling them to arrest anyone suspected of committing a hate crime against those engaged in ‘dogging’.

Although it notes that outdoor sex can have an ‘impact on the quality of life of people using these locations for leisure pursuits’ - for example dog walkers and tourists - the rights of those cottaging, cruising or dogging must be taken into account by officers."

So, no yelling "Get a room, Shorty!", eh?

But for real angst inducing commentary, see here: http://shine.yahoo.com/event/haven/s...-cold-2396276/ I wonder if the police handbook addresses the post-traumatic stress of someone telling you in the newspaper/online to wash your filthy linens?

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by inked

... the rights of those cottaging, cruising or dogging must be taken into account by officers."

So, no yelling "Get a room, Shorty!", eh?

Nah, my interpretation is just that which is written - that the rights of offenders (be it doggers, speeders, embezzlers, heroinists) always must be respected. It's not the same as turning a blind eye to their offences. A hate crime isn't less of a crime when the subject is a "dogger".

As usual when it comes to stories like this, I think the writer over-inflates it all

Originally Posted by inked

I wonder if the police handbook addresses the post-traumatic stress of someone telling you in the newspaper/online to wash your filthy linens?

On the other hand there is the hygiene hypotheses, which states that a too clean environment can make you more prone to allergies and auto-immune diseases. You might want to think twice before you tackle the germ "problem".

[GrayMouser]

I think you could still yell "Get a room", but the "Shorty" part may be banned as likely to cause traumatic stress for reasons which would likely get me banned here if I were to discuss it in greater detail.

But, yes, at times The Old Country does seem to have become the Homeland for p.c. gone mad

[The Gaffer]

It's the Daily Mail, which is one of the nastiest publications in the English language.

The headlines are written by a machine: http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

"HAVE THE POLES GIVEN THE MEMORY OF DIANA DIABETES?"
"WILL FEMINISM STEAL THE IDENTITY OF TAXPAYERS?"
"COULD TWITTER GIVE THE BRITISH PEOPLE CANCER?"

etc

[inked]

"One Kent officer, who did not want to be named, said: 'So now we are being told not just to turn a blind eye to public indecency, we are being told to arrest anyone who has anything bad to say against people taking part in outdoor sex.

'It’s getting to the stage that people who break the law have more rights than the normal man or woman on the street, and as for them suffering from post traumatic stress, what about the people who witness these exhibitions and are shocked by it? What about their rights.' "


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz12HIKWjHl

Gaffer, aside from your interesting attribution of titles, do you have a comment on whether or not "doggers" are violating the rights of people engaged in use of public areas?

[The Gaffer]

As I have to fight my way through a writhing mass of homosexual muslim multiculturalists to get to the keyboard, I have to be very selective about such demands on my valuable time, so no, I don't.

Do you?

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

As I have to fight my way through a writhing mass of homosexual muslim multiculturalists to get to the keyboard, I have to be very selective about such demands on my valuable time, so no, I don't.

.... your commute to work must just be awful.......

I apologize, I have nothing to add, but that seriously cracked me up.

[inked]

Too bad, Gaffer.

Actually, if individuals live in societies, then there is a rationale for the application of societal standards to individual behaviours. E.g., the rules of the board at Entmoot und de moderators. (And then there is this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ng-patent.html . Should parents be able to influence their children to this degree of cede control to Apple? Hmm. Should they cede control to "doggers"?)

Apply to society at large and this particular behaviour.

Or, take a stroll through the park with your family and have a sight-seeing tour of the various flora, fauna, and dogging styles, I guess.

Don't you have a belief in something called "the greatest good" for a society (which is based on _____________)? Apply to this particular situation.

I personally believe that social regulation of such behaviours is apropos and that individual autonomy does not in this case trump social good, but, hey, what do I know?

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by inked

"One Kent officer, who did not want to be named, said: 'So now we are being told not just to turn a blind eye to public indecency, we are being told to arrest anyone who has anything bad to say against people taking part in outdoor sex.

I believe if the officer read his instructions more carefully, he would find that a) he is not to turn a blind eye and b) he is not to arrest people that just have a "bad say" about the matter of "dogging". The Mail Online on its part has put such a faithless slant to this article that the reader of course interprets it all some kind of sick regulation that forces policemen to fight of any 80-year-old lady in the park who objects when the "doggers" go at it in a nearby bush. But it attracts readers, I suppose.

[inked]

Intriguing how it becomes the officer's fault for not having read his rule book more carefully, Jonathan. What say the "doggers" should read theirs -the law, which says "NO" to "dogging"? Bit of a corker, wot?

[Jonathan]

What are you defending Inked? The police's right to intervene unprofessionally?

A draft of the Scottish Hate Crime Manual can be found online. This is what it has to say on "dogging":

Public sex environments

The issues surrounding public sex environments can be complex and consequently provide a challenge for the police. Whilst complaints regarding consensual public sex must be considered and responded to, it must also be noted that people engaging in such activity are potential targets for hate crime perpetrators. Reporting of crime committed in these environments can present particular problems, as victims may not wish to report victimisation due to a misconception that the police will primarily be interested in why they were there, as opposed to tackling hate or prejudice motivated crime.

The police have a responsibility to ensure that local community concerns are adequately addressed, as even consensual activity between adults in such environments may be unlawful. However, the police must accept they also have the dual responsibility of ensuring that any victims of crime in such environments receive a professional response.

When policing public sex environments, it can also be beneficial to obtain the assistance of support groups and partner agencies.

ACPOS has produced guidelines in relation to the policing of public sex environments.

Those guidelines were also easy to find online:
ACPO Guidance on the Policing of Public Sexual Activity

Nothing in there about turning a blind eye, to the contrary.

[GrayMouser]

Basically the whole thing is about gay-bashing, in the physical sense. Closeted individuals go to public places- parks, washrooms etc- to solicit gay sex, like the "family values" Republican Congressman that got busted in the airport toilet.

And no, they shouldn't do that.

They become targets of violence, either by anti-gay bigots and gangs or simply by muggers who think they're an easy mark because they won't call for the police.

The law is an attempt to make sure the police put more emphasis on the crime of violence rather than (some) following their own prejudices and being more concerned with the public sex. The "Bloody poofs, got what they deserved" attitude.