Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

Resolution Negated: That public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. Introduction: I will respond to my opponent's arguments on a point by point basis and then offer arguments of my own. My argument will focus on two factors: the right of the state to intervene in personal affairs and the level of health concerns present by unimmunized persons. OBSV1: Public Health Concerns are valid My opponent contends correctly that people don't like dealing with diseases. If they are immunized against such disease, those diseases no longer present a health concern for them (they are immune). So if others are not immunized, it does not negatively affect immunized people because immunized people cannot contract the disease. It is not necessary for the state to force people to become immunized to protect others; if those others want protection they can get the immunization for themselves. OBSV2: Since PHC's represent society's will they're justifiable in acting The public may be concerned for there own health, but that does not mean they will take action to preserve their health and it does not mean the government should do the same. Approximately 25% of Americans are obese (1) but there is not a major public outcry to correct this. It is very doubtful that people would respond positively to government mandated dieting and exercise, such would certainly be considered a violation of people's right to live as they wish. OBSV3: Stats are irrelevant By this I am assuming that my opponent means it is not relevant to cite the impracticality of actually applying this idea. I agree that the resolution does not call for action and therefore this is irrelevant. However, all statistically information is not irrelevant because of this. C1: State is Legitimate in Acting This is a highly assumptive point that is backed up by largely irrelevant details. Compulsory immunizations are not necessary for the government to protect its citizens, in order to fulfill that role it must merely offer them to those who desire them. It is not necessary for the government to override the desires of an individual in the name of protecting said individual from harm. Furthermore, the example of the Bubonic Plague is completely irrelevant. Immunization did not exist at that time. In any case, this example weighs heavily against my opponent has government attempts to combat the spread of the plague were obviously unsuccessful considering the death rate. The quarantines my opponent describes do not indicate the government is acting in the name of its people's health since they condemn those in the quarantined area. The deeper flaw in assumption is that it is assumed the government has the duty of defending its people. Is there an intrinsic trait possessed by governments that mandates they must protect their people? Once the arbitrary designation of "government" (an abstraction) is placed on something, is it magically endowed with the mandate to protect its people? Governments are purely a construction of the human mind, they have no objective moral initiatives. C2: Disease Damages Education Disease only damages the education of those who get the disease. Those who reject immunization may suffer the consequences, but it will effect only them and not others. There is nothing stopping an immunized child from getting an education just because other people in society may reject the immunization. My opponent seems to assume that the alternative to compulsory immunization is widespread disease. On the contrary, it is highly likely that given optional immunization a large number of people would seek out vaccines. Flu shots are not mandatory but a very large number of people in the US and Canada get them (2). If some people, for whatever reason, do not wish to be immunized, than that is their personal business. It will not have a huge negative impact on society, it will not lead to widespread poverty. The worst thing that happens is a few people get the disease and they regret not getting vaccinated. I urge readers to remember that the resolution was that immunization should be compulsory, meaning required by law, not merely available to all those who desire it. My opponent's entire argument about poverty is irrelevant because it does not logically follow that unless all individuals are forced to be immunized, widespread poverty will occur. This result is too unlikely to warrant consideration. C3: Religious Groups Do Not Surpass the State This is basically a straw man argument. My opponent assumes I will argue that people have the right to refuse vaccines because of religious considerations. I do not argue this. I believe that an individual has the right to refuse a vaccinate for any reason, as I will outline latter. My opponent's reference to the Supreme Court is a pointless appeal to authority. This debate is over what is just, not over what is legally correct. The Supreme Court has made rulings that were morally reprehensible. The case of the Dred Scott decision is so elementary and famous that it needs not even be discussed. To compound what I have already stated, diseases are not communicable to those who have been immunized, the word immunized by definition means that the immunized person is now immune and cannot contract the disease. Non-immunized people only present a health risk to other non-immunized people (who are free to seek out the vaccine at any time, since we are arguing about whether it should be mandatory and not whether it should be available.) I will now present my own cases. C4: An Individual Has the Rights of His/Her Own Body Compulsory immunizations represent the ultimate surrender of the individual's rights to privacy to the State. It designates the right to determine what goes in to a person's body to be that of the government and not that of the individual in question. If people do not have the right to determine the composition of their own physical form, then what other rights can they possibly possess? On a philosophical level this proposal is authoritarian in the extreme. There can be no further exercise of government power of individual freedom then to deny an individual the right to determine what does and does not go into their body. The body of an individual belongs to and is owned by that individual and not by the State. To hear it suggested otherwise is frankly terrifying to me. Alleged health concerns (which I have demonstrated are illogical considering how vaccines actually work) do not justify the ultimate surrender of individual rights. C5: Power Is Inherently Illegitimate Those in authority have the burden of proof to demonstrate why their authority is justified. If this burden of proof cannot be met, the authority in question should not be obeyed. My opponent's arguments rest on the assumption that the authority of the State is intrinsically justified and it must therefore use it for certain purposes, but the reverse is true. The State must prove that its exercise of power is legitimate prior to having the right to exercise any power at all. My opponent does not demonstrate that protecting people, from themselves, not others, is a just use of power. I suggest that it is not. Conclusion I have additional arguments against this resolution but I am running out of room. I trust I have adequately dismantled my opponent's arguments so I will put more focus on developing my own in the next round. Best of luck to my opponent in coming up with a rebuttal. Sources: (1) http://www.obesity.org... (2) http://www.who.int...