The first of the problems with the Gardasil is lobbying being done by Merck. After the Vioxx problems, Merck’s credibility has been greatly eroded after its media campaign behind Vioxx and trying to save face once it was established that Vioxx causes heart problems. Merck was looking for a way out of its financial worries and making the vaccine mandatory will definitely provide a tremendous financial boost to Merck’s Vioxx induced losses. Making Gardasil mandatory means simply big money. Phyllis Schlafly says that Merck is lobbying to get it mandatory for profiteering reasons. While it is not any wrongdoing as per law, it is evident that if Merck gets successful in its campaign, its coffers are going to stay filled for a very long time. The question, therefore, arises of ethics in health that are business interests of Merck the dominant factor in this campaign or long term public health interests? Later seems likely because of the involvement of Texas governor Perry’s chief of staff and the executive order by the governor for making the drug mandatory. Gardasil is potentially a goldmine worth significant investments like these. Though this lobbying does not prove by itself that Gardasil is not required at all, it raises few more questions to be pondered. We now take a look at whole concept of making vaccines mandatory. So far all the vaccines which have been made mandatory and are generally believed to be noncontroversial are Smallpox, polio, and measles. All of these vaccinations reduce lifetime risk to all the known strains of these viruses. Many other vaccines are available which though are highly effective against certain strains however do not work against all the strains are still not accepted as mandatory. Another argument which justifies in making a vaccine virulent is the contagiousness of the disease. Therefore making Gardasil mandatory will certainly seem like favouring for a particular pharmaceutical house rather than general health interests of the community.