Resolved: State Mandated Administration of Childhood Vaccinations is Justsified

I seem to be doing a lot of medical debates recently, but this one caught my attention. It is my firm belief that state mandated administration of childhood vaccinations, as my opponent proposed it, is a complete waste of time. The key flaw in my opponent's model is the ability to opt out given ANY argument, no matter how unconvincing, so long as it is valid. For instance, "I believe in the religion of nonvaccionism, so I don't want my kid getting a vaccination" would be a valid excuse for somebody who doesn't understand the science of vaccinations. Also, "I don't have the time" would be permissable as a "physical" exemption, because of course if you don't have the time you can't physically get a vaccination. I'll demonstrate why this is a problem with reference to my opponent's own arguments. My first contention is that it's not up to us to decide if vaccinations are reasonable or justified. My opponent and I both agree that this should instead be left up to the individual, and thanks to my opponent's opt-out clause, it is. Since we're dealing with minors here, the consent process (in this case, consent not to have a vaccination) would not be given by the patient but by their legal caregivers. These are the people we trust to make the best decisions on the children's behalf in virtually every aspect of their lives, so we can reasonably trust that the vast majority of them will probably make a highly informed decision. They're making these kinds of decisions right now under the status quo. Parents aren't like "here's my baby, stick whatever medicines into him you want to", they seek out all the relevant information. They'll do that whether the model is accepted or not. So assume you're a parent who wants to give their kids a vaccination. Under the status quo, you'd give your kids a vaccination. Under my opponent's model, your kids will be given a vaccination. So there's no difference there. Now assume you're a parent who doesn't want to give their kids a vaccination. Under the status quo, you'd not give your kids a vaccination. Under my opponent's model, you'd exempt them from giving them a vaccination. If my opponent's case is that herd immunity is not being reached voluntarily, then proposing a voluntary model definitely won't solve the problem. My second contention is that there is no right to mandated vaccinations. That's because no government in this world is, or can ever be, a John-Locke-utopia. Governments in reality enact policy until they are overthrown by people. The problem with a John-Locke-utopia is that, like Karl Marx's socialism, it implies a commonality or accepted philosophy among all the people in that society - everyone working for the common good, not their own. Karl Marx envisioned a neutral state in exactly the same way as Locke, but Marx actually tried to make it practically workable. Of course, anybody who knows the history of communism will know that it didn't practically work. Even if the world was so utopian, however, the fact that your own model has an opt-out clause implies that it isn't. If everyone agreed to one social contract - we'll all value our longetivity forevermore - then things would be different. With such a large proportion of the world smoking, however, I think you'll find that's not what happens - there is no social contract. Furthermore, non-vaccinated people pose no threat to vaccinated people, because they're vaccinated. Once you have a vaccine you can't get the desease, that's the whole point. So the whole idea is false that you're "doing harm to others" by not vaccinating. My third contention is that there is no justice in simply asking lawyers whether something is just or not. Seriously. Every single person pro cites in this paragraph was a lawyer at some stage. The fact is that with an opt-out clause, you're making all these opinions meaningless. You're telling them that the state cannot mandate vaccinations, only they can shift the burden of proof from one group of parents to the other. In law there's an idea called precedent - future laws should conform to past decisions. If my opponent is going to use the precedent of US case law and philosophy, why is his model inconsistant with it? I'm going to add another three contentions. Not everyone is as liberal as I am, and some people just resent being forced to do anything. If you force them to do something, instead of asking them nicely, they're likely to not co-operate. This is true even if you're not actually forcing them to do something, such as in this model. The perception that the government is using public policy to control people's personal lives won't jar well with this "libertarian" crowd, and you bet that they'll reduce the number of vaccinations they give their kids for precisely this reason. Less vaccinations is bad, even from a utilitarian perspective. The second contention is that there's no recourse. Pretend I flouted the law and didn't give up my kids for vaccination or give a proper excuse. What will the authorities do? There's two ways they can find out - if my child gets sick (in which case it's too late), or by checking every single child for every single vaccination. That's a mammoth administrative task. And if you take the parents to court, they'll simply say (through their lawyers) "my children shouldn't have a vaccination, it's in their best interest, but I couldn't think of a reason why. I am obliged as a parent to do what's best for my children, and thus found this law irreconcilable with my legal obligations as this child's guardian". That's thee sort of legal case that can only result in one of the two being struck down (or in systems where this is not allowed, in the judge making an arbritrary ruling, which doesn't help anyone) - and you bet parenthood will beat mandated vaccinations any day. This makes the law a total waste of time. The third contention is which vaccinations this law applies to. My opponent wasn't very specific, but he mentioned the 23 key illnesses. 23 vaccinations is actually a lot. Most of the vaccinations on the list have been around for less than a few decades. Scientists cannot even be sure that they are safe in the long term. When I was a child, I was given a minimum of vaccinations. By some strange coincidence, my preschool was hit by a spectacular outbreak of glue ear. It affected every single child except me. And every single other child had at least twice as many vaccinations as I did. I'm not saying vaccinations should be avoided outright - I'm saying that this law applies even to very new vaccinations that cannot reasonably have undergone sufficient long-term scientific testing.