Hacker News Reader

Comment by tialaramex | Hacker News Reader

It isn't. Does the US not vaccinate boys? Most advanced countries began routinely vaccinating boys in the same cohort as girls. In the UK certainly "Men who have sex with Men" is the next most significant group targeted for vaccination, up to age 45.

The reason this didn't happen from the outset is that you can't vaccinate the boys to protect girls because that's not a direct benefit to the patient, the early data was specifically for cervical cancer and if you don't have a cervix that isn't a benefit.

View on HN

They vaccinate boys. Our doctor recommended it, but I suspect it largely depends on the doctor.

Europe vaccinated boys way before in the US. When I tried to get the vaccine back in college, I was denied. I argued that in Europe they were vaccinating boys, but to no avail.

In other words, at the time they knew the direct benefits for boys, but that wasn't a concern because girls had a higher rate of cancer from HPV. So they were prioritized.

> can't vaccinate the boys to protect girls because that's not a direct benefit

Medical ethics doesn't allow a procedure which is good for society, but doesn't directly benefit the patient.

However, I think that is wrong. Elsewhere in society we frequently do that - for example we put people into prison, which is of very little benefit to the prisoner. We stand up to let an old person take a seat on a train, which is of no benefit to the person standing up. We send bailiffs, which is of little benefit to the debtor. We pay taxes, which is of little direct benefit to the taxpayer.

Why does the medical world have a stricter ethical standard when there are clearly benefits to society that cannot be realised because of the different approach?

None of the examples you cite require the person to take something into their body that they do not want. You need an example where we effectively force people to ingest something or make a modification to their body without their explicit consent.

While searching i found that this could apply to people in psychiatric wards to force them to take their medication (https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/drugs-and-treatm...).

Consent is a separate issue. Medical ethics make it unethical to do something good for society but with no benefit to the patient, even with the consent of the patient.

Note that there are a few cases where these medical ethics are violated for historic reasons. For example, donating a kidney (no benefit to the donor). Another example: Taking a vaccine for an almost eradicated disease (at that point, you are taking the vaccine for the social purpose of eradicating the disease, not for the personal benefit of not contracting the disease).

These things are grandfathered into medical ethics, but would no longer be allowed if proposed today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com