Ethics and HPV Vaccine: An Ethical Review

This article provides an ethical review of the development and implementation of the HPV vaccine, including the debate surrounding its mandatory use, the theoretical lenses through which it can be evaluated, and its impact on justice and moral codes.

Running head: ETHICS 1
Ethics
Student by (Name)
Institution

ETHICS 2
HPV vaccine
Ethical review
Development of vaccine against human papilloma virus (HPV) over the past created a
heated debate. The debate has been on whether to mandate the HPV vaccine which can help
control the cervical disease causing virus human papilloma virus. The debate has been between
two opposing sides who want the vaccine tested and the opposing group who are not for the trial
claiming it as unethical medical practice (Intemann & de Melo, 2010). The debate between these
two sides could also be viewed as competing ethical values. The issue of autonomy in relation to
HPV vaccination is the main cause the debate where it was proposed that young girls and women
should go through a mandatory HPV vaccination.
The heated debate against and for the HPV vaccine resulted into creation of a special
committee by the government which came up with an ethical framework for screening and
oversight on the ethical conduct in relation to human papilloma virus vaccine. The conflict
resulting to the change can be conceptualized graphically on theories such as utilitarianism, and
justice which supports the vaccination based on its benefits. The theory of utilitarianism when
applied to human papilloma virus vaccine with various condition met as outlined by the
oversight committee, humanity towards the virus control becomes a realistic objective.
Theoretical lenses
The policies relating to changes in the healthcare system in relation to female patients
making decisions. The committee appointed by the government came up with policies allowing
women to consent before being vaccinated against human papilloma. Prior to women patients
right implementation (Parker, 2010). Doctors assumed that they right and treated women without

ETHICS 3
their consent. The women rights to make decisions can be evaluated through various ethical
theories such as utilitarianism, double effect and principlism. Various scholars such as Zukerman
in their schools of thought stated that HPV vaccine can be used universally for young girls of
between ages 11year to 12 years with autonomy given to the parent. Utilitarianism theory also
states that with all the procedures observed the vaccination can be mandated even though it takes
autonomy from patients.
Is justice being undermined?
Compared to early days, it can be said that new policies related to women patients’
autonomy provides justice. However, implementation of compulsory HPV vaccination among
young girls of age 11-12 years since the government takes parent and children autonomy. The
parents’ autonomy and consent is important when it comes to medical service provision.
However, the current policies in relation patient’s right and autonomy provides justice.
Is there a group in the society not getting help?
The implementation of compulsory vaccine is not helpful to all members of the society.
There are groups in the society who prefer abstinence as a way of control HPV virus thus feels
uncomfortable with HPV vaccine. On the other hand, policies preventing compulsory
vaccination results into people who are less fortune not to get HPV screening and treatment as a
result of the high cost.
Are there rules clashing with moral codes?
The mandatory human papilloma virus is against the moral codes of the society as most
individuals in the society specifically the religious community. The claim that HPV vaccine
encourages sexual immorality.

ETHICS 4
References
Intemann, K., & de Melo-Martín, I. (2010). Social values and scientific evidence: the case of the
HPV vaccines. Biology & philosophy, 25(2), 203-213.
Parker, C. (2010). One for the girls?: Cervical cancer prevention and the introduction of the HPV
vaccine in Aotearoa New Zealand. Women's Studies Journal, 24(2), 25.