Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

I agree. The value should be societal welfare. We can achieve societal welfare by doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people (utilitarianism.) Now let's examine my opponent's claims. --- C1: COMPULSORY IMMUNIZATION UPHOLDS SOCIETAL WELFARE Read his article, nowhere in there does it say "compulsory." It is simply "an immunization campaign carried out by the World Health Organization." If simply providing more voluntary vaccinations stops disease, as his article says it does, I see no reason why he can validly draw the conclusion that we also need to immunize those who are unwilling. --- C2: COMPULSORY IMMUNIZATION IS THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER This is the same mistake as he made last time. He posts an article that simply states the benefits of immunization, then draws the conclusion that compulsory immunization is necessary. However, the actual article he has posted again proves the contrary: that compulsory immunization is superfluous! His source states that "States, territories, and local governments have instituted effective immunization programs." He has forgotten that America still allows immunization exemption. [1] His source, then, simply states the benefits of voluntary immunization. --- C3: UTILITARIANISM ACHIEVES SOCIETAL WELFARE Um, ok? I've already agreed that we should adhere to utilitarianism. This point proves nothing. ======== Observations ======== 1: Herd Immunity Herd immunity describes a type of immunity that occurs when the vaccination of a portion of the population (or herd) provides protection to unprotected individuals. For example, smallpox's herd immunity threshold is 83-85%. [2] 2: Voluntary immunizations routinely exceed herd immunity a. In Colorado, immunization rates are as high as 98%. [1] b. The Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden have reached 90% to 93% [measles immunization] voluntarily. Incentives could further increase that number. [Cynthia M. Steckel, "Mandatory Immunization for Health Care Workers – An Ethical Discussion" AAOHN Journal, Vol 55, Issue 1, 2007.] c. In 1997, a federal initiative to increase immunization coverage in Australia included financial incentives for parents and family doctors...Coverage for vaccines due by 12 months of age was 94% in 2001, compared with 75% in 1997, showing that incentives for parents and providers contribute to high immunization rates, even in the jurisdictions that do not have legislation to link school entry with vaccination. [Daniel Salmon, Stephen Teret, C. Raina MacIntyre, David Salisbury, Margaret Burgess, and Neal A. Halsey, "Compulsory Vaccination and Conscientious or Philosophical Exemptions: Past, Present, and Future", The Lancet, Volume 367, Issue 9508, 2006.] ======== Contentions ======== 1. There is no practical benefit to compulsory immunization. Look at the 3 sources in my observation that say we already prevent disease without compulsory immunization. But further, my opponent has given sources on my behalf as well! Both his contentions 1 and 2 have sources glorifying voluntary immunization programs. This means his issue of disease is already solved with or without compulsion, so there is no 'greater good for the greater number' and he isn't achieving utilitarianism at all. 2. Compulsory immunization leads to lower quality vaccines. What keeps pharmaceutical companies from making vaccines with sever adverse side effects? People refuse to vaccinated if they are afraid that they will be hurt by it. [3] The pharmaceutical companies can't "sell the product;" they have to iron out the kinks, so to speak. That changes with compulsory immunization. The companies make a vaccine, for example the "experimental swine flu vaccines" [3] that may have adverse side effects, and the government forcibly distributes it. You have to accept the vaccine regardless of possible side effects; you have to "buy the product." In this situation, the company's only objective is to make a vaccine that effectively stops the disease, not one that is safe to administer. There is no profit gained in improving the safety of vaccination with compulsory immunization. 3. Compulsory immunization leads to biopower. It's not the small minority of 2-5% who are losing their rights here. It's not just those who have previously refused vaccination that have their rights violated. Everybody loses their rights. I might have gotten all vaccinations in the past. That doesn't mean that I'll do so in the future, or that I don't deserve the right to refuse immunization. Affirming means the government violates the rights of all of the population, not a select few. This massive violation of human rights is what philosopher Michel Foucault says constitutes Biopower. Biopower is the government's control of human life. Foucault contends that government is established solely to protect the rights of citizens. It should not try to manage the lives of its citizens. Foucault claims that this management of life turns people into objects. The government counts people as units of bare life. Its goal becomes maximizing the quantity of bare life under its control or "protection." He argues that this mindset leads us to commit grave atrocities in the name of "the common good" as he writes, "Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended; they are waged on the behalf of the ontological existence of everyone; entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity: massacres have become vital. It is as managers of life and survival, of bodies and the race, that so many regimes have been able to wage so many wars, causing so many men to be killed. And through a turn that closes the circle, As the technology of wars has caused them to tend increasingly toward all-out destruction, the decision that initiates them and the one that terminates them are in fact increasingly informed by the naked question of survival. The atomic situation is now at the end point of this process: the power to expose a whole population to death is the underside of the power to guarantee an individual's continued existence." Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. New York: Vintage, 1990 ======= Conclusion ======= My opponent and I agree on the standards for the round. We are looking to maximize societal welfare by following the philosophy of utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number. --- That being said, my opponent certainly hasn't proved that vaccinations are beneficial at all to society. He has listed 3 contentions. He seems to forget for which side he is arguing in his 1st 2 contentions. He posts sources praising the effectiveness of voluntary immunization. This in no way supports the conclusions he makes that compulsory immunization is in any way necessary. His 3rd contention isn't even a contention at all. He simply says that utilitarianism leads to societal welfare. That statement I can agree with. I can't agree that compulsory immunization, however, leads to societal welfare. It's not the greater good and none of his contentions say that it is. --- Now you have the arguments against compulsory immunization. 1. Voluntary immunization works equally well. We provide incentives for vaccination as well as outlining the benefits and harms, then we administer the vaccination provided that the patient gives his or her informed consent. All studies, including my opponents prove that this is more than sufficient to reach the necessary threshold of herd immunity. 2. Voluntary immunization checks pharmaceutical company abuse. 3. Compulsory immunization leads to biopower. ===== Sources ===== [1] http://www.i2i.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.infectioncontroltoday.com...