Posts
Do We Deserve STDs?
I attended a virology conference a while ago where the immunological basis for a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was discussed. HPVs are a family of viruses responsible for causing warts. Some are sexually transmitted, and a few "high-risk" types are closely associated with cervical cancer in women. (More here.) A vaccine for some "high-risk" types is in clinical trials and looks promising. The speaker mentioned that the vaccine would be controversial among some groups because they would view it as promoting sexual activity. I asked myself if I would have my children vaccinated against any STDs possible. I think the answer has to be "yes."
Continue Reading
Aside from those that are against vaccines in general I can only think of a couple of moral/religously-based arguments against vaccines for STDs.
1. God uses STDs to discourage promiscuity. Vaccinating not only removes that discouragement, but is also a signal that promiscuity is ok.
2. God uses STDs to punish sinners--vaccinate and you remove consequences of sin.
I think these arguments fail for several reasons. First, humans are not the only ones afflicted with STDs--animals are too. I don't know how prevalent in the animal kingdom they are (maybe a vet can comment) but I know that some livestock have them. This puts STDs in a context of microbes filling a niche and exploiting a certain method of transmission, which weakens an argument of God's intent.
As mentioned above, STDs can have long-term health consequences including cancer, AIDS, and death. We understand that God regulates sexual behavior in order to maintain and strengthen the family. Inappropriate sexual behavior is damaging to ourselves and families in and of itself. Can we defend further consequences such as sterility, illness, and death--all of which damage families further? Some STDs can be effectively treated or cured. Would we deny treatment to somebody suffering from one of these diseases on the basis that they need to suffer for their wrongdoing? If not, then why not prevent it in the first place? To me, contrary attitudes seem lacking in charity and forgiveness.
We should also keep the innocent in mind--those who are infected by rape, a cheating spouse, blood transfusion, or other means beyond their control. Such circumstances could happen to anyone. Is the "punishment" of sinners (what about repentant sinners?) worth the suffering of the innocent? I don't think so.
A final couple of questions that I don't have authoritative answers for: To what degree do STDs actually represent a significant factor in people's sexual decisions? Would sexual activity increase significantly in the absence of STDs? My guess is that they play a supporting role, but not as much as we might think.
I admit that I don't have teenagers yet, so perhaps there are aspects to this that I am missing. I'm interested in other people's thoughts.
(Side note: I may pick this up for a post of its own, but I found this article, which is closely related to the topic at hand. Is it enough to feel principled about our approach, or should there be a practical benefit?)
5 comments:
Do seatbelts encourage car accidents?
Posted by Pheo
I imagine that if there were effective vaccines for STDs it would simple result in the disapearance of condom use (accept for certain religiously devout).
The real question is the allocation of research funds. Should we spend resources on the most consequential or the most politically expedient?
Posted by J. Stapley
I’ll be the first one to admit that the vast majority of research, regardless of aim is a good thing. There is no question that HIV research has yielded incredible dividends. The body of knowledge is incomparable between now and just 1 decade earlier. Moreover, now HIV is a hugely consequential (especially internationally).
However, dividends result from all research. And when you look at other major causes of illness and death (especially among third world children), there is definite lack of interest (though, the new Rotavirus vaccines are a huge deal).
I guess I am just bemoaning the political nature in which mega grants are funded (in general) and how celebrity pet causes (I think) detract from other serious situations. Ideally, there would be enough funding for every excellent scientist…ideally.
Posted by J. Stapley
Jared,
A couple of thoughts after reading your article.
1. God created weeds and thorns to torment man. Why not diseases also?
2. I agree that God probably doesn't use STD's to punish sinners much the same way that he doesn't use gravity to punish someone who leans too far over the cliff. It's just a natural possibility/consequence. Also I have a hard time believing that God is punishing a sinner with a STD when there are many "good" people who die of non STD's. Is he punishing them? To imply that a person is being punished with a STD would also imply that people with non-STD's are being punished as well.
Posted by Pharoah
[Since Blogger does not allow comment editing, this comment has been deleted and re-posted. Chronological order has not been preserved.]
J. Stapley,
You raise an interesting and complicated question. I don't know if you specifically have HIV in mind, but some criticize the amount spent on HIV research, arguing that other diseases are more important. I don't have a solid opinion on this, but I will say that HIV research has resulted in a wealth of information applicable to other areas. When you research HIV you are not just studying the virus. You are studying immunology, cell biology, public health, other associated infections, and so forth. The same is true for other diseases as well.
As for consequential, that raises international issues. Should we devote more money toward diseases that afflict third-world countries but are absent in the U.S.? Both sides could probably make a persuasive case.
Post a Comment