It's one thing to have reframing in political discourse where blind partisanship reigns. It is an entirely different matter when reframing starts affecting medical information presented to patients. The recent acclaim for the cervical cancer vaccine is one such case of reframing a debate gone drastically wrong.
One important fact about the cervical cancer vaccine is that it is not designed to prevent cervical cancer. There is no medical study or information that will refute this point. What this vaccine prevents is Human PapillomaVirus (HPV) or genital warts. It just so happens that HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer.
Saying this vaccine prevents cervical cancer is like saying prohibition prevented car accidents. Sure, fewer people got drunk and before driving cars, but that's not quite the point. The vaccine does not attack cervical cancer directly.
Typically medical treatments are described by the condition they are directly treating. A polio vaccine prevents polio. The measles vaccine prevents measles. The question is why this HPV vaccine is being described as a cervical cancer vaccine.
HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, one that isn't effectively prevented from being spread by condoms or other birth control methods. As a result, tens of millions of people in the United States alone are carriers of the virus. This disease is in pandemic proportions. Instead of taming sexual behavior to deal with the risk of this disease, the medical community invents a vaccine so promiscuity can continue without consequences.
In an attempt to downplay the significance of HPV and the rates people have been infected by it, the medical community refuses to describe this vaccine by what it actually does. What is even more disquieting is the attempt to have this vaccine administered to young girls as a requirement to attend school even before it has been established that there are no harmful effects that this vaccine will cause to girls of that age.
If the government is going to require children to congregate in schools, it has the obligation to make sure that those children do so in an environment that is healthy. This should not be confused with free license for the government to usurp the medical decision-making rights of parents.