Public health concerns Justify compulsory immunization

The following contentions will attempt to justify that compulsory immunization is not a requirement to ensure the health and safety of the public. These arguments are also based upon the system of government that is used by the United States of America. As are the population stats. I would also like to say that in no context am I against getting immunizations, only making them a legal requirement. Contention 1 A governmental system like than of America's is initially based upon the principals of upholding the rights of the individual, not of the collective [1]. Sub Point A: A person may choose to do most anything they want to as long as they do not cause undue harm to others. This is the basic principal behind the phrase Pursuit of Happiness. This means that if an individual chooses to partake in an activity that is harmful to themselves they are allowed to make that choice for the most part. Sub Point B: Choosing not to get an immunization against any specific disease is simply an individual exercising this freedom. It may be true that a vast majority of people who have the option to be immunized against diseases choose to be immunized. It is also true that there are individuals that suffer severe and life threatening side-effects from taking vaccines. Among the most popular vaccines about 1 in 1,000,000 suffer from these [2]. These compulsory vaccines would basically condemn 307 [3, 11/13/2009] people to death or serious health problems. In other, less popular vaccines this ratio greatly rises, the highest being 1 in 50,000. This ratio would put 6,140 individuals at risk. Contention 2 Immunization of 100% of a population is not required to eradicate the specified disease from that population. [4] For any specific disease to be eliminated from a population it simply must not be allowed to infect any in that population. This means that as long as most are immunized from a certain disease then the chances of a person who is not immunized against that certain disease getting that disease is low. If the ratio of immunized to non immunized continues to rise in the favor of the immunized then eventually there will be a time when the percentage of people infected with a disease simply is not enough to justify the passing of a compulsory immunization law. Contention 3 Immunization is not an absolute defense against any specific disease. [5] While getting an immunization can prevent you from getting the disease it does not mean you will not. Getting an immunization can be compared to a wall that guards you from an enemy. This wall is a very strong and effective wall. Since it is so strong and effective your enemies need to find a way to get past your wall. Some may try to climb over it, some may try to go around it, and others may try to break it down. A majority of these efforts fail, but there are a few that succeed in getting past your wall to hurt you. Contention 4 There is also the aspect of religion to consider, freedom of religion is a liberty granted to individuals and for some religion getting immunized might go against one of the tenants of that religion. Sources: [1] . http://www.usconstitution.net... [2] . http://www.cdc.gov... [3] . http://www.census.gov... [4] . http://virology-online.com... (specifically section near bottom about herd immunization [5] . http://www.sunjournal.com... (specifically the fifth paragraph)