Faculty Bibliography

ARTHUR L

The licensure in 2006 of a vaccine against the subtypes of human papillomavirus (HPV) responsible for the majority of cervical cancers and genital warts was heralded as a watershed moment for vaccination, cancer prevention, and global health. A safe and effective vaccine against HPV has long been viewed as an enormous asset to cervical cancer prevention efforts worldwide. This is particularly true for places lacking robust Pap screening programs where cervical cancer has the greatest prevalence and mortality. Well before its licensure, however, some observers noted significant obstacles that would need to be addressed in order for an HPV vaccination program to succeed. These included the vaccine's relatively high cost, availability, and opposition from socially conservative groups. Such concerns associated with the implementation of HPV vaccination were soon overwhelmed by the furor that followed the unexpectedly early efforts by the US state governments to require the vaccine as a condition of attendance in public schools, proposals imprecisely referred to as "mandates." In this study, we review the controversy surrounding this debate and its effects on important ethical and public health issues that still need to be addressed.

In 2006, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws rewrote the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. To overcome the problem of family members prohibiting organ donation from their deceased loved ones even when a donor card existed, the commissioners modified the act to prevent end-of-life care from precluding organ donation. An unintended consequence of the new wording creates the potential for end-of-life care that prioritizes care of the potential donor organs over care and comfort of the dying person. The commissioners have now revised the act, but the original version has already been legislated in many states, with others poised to follow. To protect dying patients' wishes about their end-of-life care, states that have legislated or are considering the original act must replace it with the revised version. A long-term and important ethical precept must stand: Care of dying patients takes precedence over organs. Another laudable goal must be promoted as well: Organ donation is an important part of end-of-life care.