Saturday, September 24, 2005

Governmental Morality

Has anyone ever thought about government legislating our morality? It's happening in subtle ways and the most recent example has occurred with the start of this school year. Every child entering 9th and 12th grades in Indiana is now required to receive the Hepatitis B vaccination.

You may ask what I mean by this. Every vaccination up until this one immunized children against diseases that could be contracted by casual contacts for no fault of their own or accidents like tetanus. But Hepatitis B can only be obtained through the "high risk" behaviors of IV drug use and sexual activity.

So now, the government is legislating to our families and ultimately telling us that since some choose high risk activities, the entire population must accept the consequences. We no longer have a choice if our kids want to attend public or private schools.

Statistics show that there are far more medical complications in teenage pregnancies and the associated premature births than there are in the much fewer cases of Hepatitis B. So my next question is; will the government eventually require every adolescent girl to receive birth control shots or pills to prevent the complications of this high risk behavior.

When are we, as concerned citizens, who abide by the laws in both the legal realm and in moral decisions going to get our elected representatives to do what is right and not what is politically correct.

I for one am tired of the government dictating morality based on political correctness, special interests, or radical social agendas.

4 Comments:

Blogger The New Albanian said...

You're doing just fine (at this blogging thing).

9/24/2005 08:48:00 PM  
Blogger The New Albanian said...

Where, then, does the health blogger stand on condoms? Is it common-sense practical advice to use one, or shoudl we be hiding them and saying no sex?

9/26/2005 09:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I certainly understand the extremely rare but potential scenario you proposed. But, it's important to keep in mind that most needle-stick injuries do not involve Hepatitis or HIV-infected blood. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) estimates that of the some 800,000 injuries each year, only about 2 percent (approximately 16,000) involve needles that are likely to be contaminated with hepatitis or HIV and out of these, it is most likely going to happen to a health care worker.

In addition, the number of new infections per year has declined from an average of 260,000 in the 1980s to about 73,000 in 2003.

There are approximately 2 out of 100 people develop Hepatitis after a needle-stick exposure to Hepatitis infected blood.

Compare this to Motor vehicle related injuries. Among children ages 1 to 14, motor vehicle collisions are a major cause of injury and disability and are responsible for 20% of all deaths in that age group. In 1980, approximately 90,000 children under 6 years of age and 800,000 children 6 to 16 years of age were injured by motor vehicles. Over half the Motor vehicle fatalities (MVF) among 1 to 14 year-olds occur among pedestrians. Of the MVF among 15 to 19 year-olds, 25% involve the teenagers as passengers; in another 25%, teenaged drivers are killed.

My point using statistics is that hepatitis B is an irrational fear compared to the things that cause so many more problems. As a society, we spend far too little on things that could really help minimize the larger risks to our children.

Governments and large organizations are guided by too many special interests and agendas and not really by the facts.

9/26/2005 10:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As for the condom issue, I believe that if we were to give as much time, money and effort in teaching abstinence we would be far better off. Having condoms, birth control etc. available is appropriate, but the disproportionate amount of taxpayer dollars going in one direction is misguided by lack of appropriate facts and stems historically from the 60’s free-love movement. It has been proven statistically to be a losing proposition.

9/26/2005 10:16:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home