Resolved: public health concerns justify compulsory vaccinations

"The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." Because I agree with John Stuart Mill, I stand in firm affirmation that Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. To clarify the round, the affirmative provides the following definitions from the resolution: Public Health: an effort organized by society to protect, promote, and restore the people's health (John Hopkins University) Justify: to prove superior to all other alternatives Compulsory: mandatory under current law (Random House Dictionary, 2009) Immunizations: to perform vaccinations or produce immunity in by inoculation (Princeton WordNet) My core value for this debate will be the protection of life. To uphold this a value criterion of the social contract will be used. The social contract says that individuals must surrender certain rights in return for the government providing protection. Observation One: If the affirmative can prove that using compulsory immunization is justified in even one case, the affirmative must win this round. Contention One: Compulsory immunizations are proven to be justified under the social contract If one wishes to live in a society, they must be willing to give up certain rights in order to gain not only individual protection from harm, but also community protection. The social contract is implemented in every society and states that citizens are required to give up some individual rights for their own protection. When the citizens feel like there is a health concern, they have to be willing to get immunized. When one doesn't obey the laws of the social contract, they are no longer going to receive the benefits. It's the government's job to make sure that the masses are taken care of, which ultimately upholds life. If one person's choice no to get immunized harms another person's right to be protected from disease, then vaccinations ought to be compulsory to prevent that harm. Contention Two: Compulsory vaccinations are more beneficial Subpoint A) These vaccinations are more effective at saving lives The 1967 smallpox breakout, which killed 2 million people, was almost entirely eradicated by the 1980's compulsory vaccination lead by the World Health Organization. If an entire disease can be almost completely wiped out by vaccinations, it's something that needs to be looked into. Salmon and Haber, of the American Medical Association, state, "United States measles surveillance data indicate that exemptors were at a statistically significant increased risk of contracting measles versus vaccinated individuals for each group and in every year. On average, from 1985 through 1992, …exemptors were 35 times more likely to contract measles than were vaccinated persons." Since these vaccinations are so extremely powerful in eradicating diseases, there's no reason as to why they shouldn't be mandatory. Without the vaccines, huge quantities of people would die, and the disease could never be treated or almost eradicated. The World Health Organization states that, "Immunization is a proven tool for controlling and eliminating life-threatening infectious diseases and is estimated to avert over 3 million deaths each year." Subpoint B) Vaccinations are cost-effective The cost effectiveness of vaccinations allow them to be administered on a large scale without running out of money. Commonly-used vaccines are a cost-effective and preventive way of promoting health, compared to the treatment of acute or chronic disease. In the U.S. during the year 2001, according to Santoli and Zhou, routine childhood immunizations against seven diseases were estimated to save over $40 billion per year. Since preventative care is much cheaper than care for treatment, compulsory vaccinations would benefit the societies. With the purchase of each vaccine, average costs go down. The companies lower their prices because they know that their vaccines will be sold in mass quantities, and for that, they must be available at cheaper prices. Overall, these vaccines are cost effective, which can allow countries to afford them, thus saving more lives. Subpoint C) The use of compulsory vaccinations Compulsory laws are out into place because the population has been proven to comply more. There has bee a higher rate of compliance for compulsory vaccinations, because people find it mandatory. With the current laws around the world, vaccinations are required, and exemptions are not publicized. For example, if you tell the people that they need to wear their seatbelts, except when sick, people that get caught will say they are sick. By not advertising that it is just to get exemptions under current law, exemptors for medical and religious restrictions can still be justifiably exempted. Contention Three: The role of the government is to protect all citizens Governments are responsible for their citizen's safety, which includes public health. The organization the power and means to enforce compulsory immunization is the government. In the Supreme Court case of Jacobson v. Massachusettes, "The US Supreme Court handed down a 7-2 decision… that upheld the right of states to enact compulsory vaccination laws. In asserting that there are ‘manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good.'" (Colgrove and Bayer, The Legacy of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 2005.) It's already just for states to put compulsory immunization programs into place, in order to preserve their citizens' lives. Isaacs and Kilham, in "Ethical Issues in Immunization", state, "Many jurisdictions currently compel parents to protect their children from risk of accident by using seat belts for travel in cars…" Many other compulsory laws are pout into place to protect citizens, which is ultimately, the crucial role of the government. Compulsory immunization laws are currently in place. The school systems require students to get immunized with various vaccines to protect the other children, as well as the child. The systems call these immunizations compulsory, yet there can be medical and religious exemptions. Therefore, compulsory can be omitted in certain, state approved cases. In the Jacobson v Massachusetts case, for example, states can omit compulsory vaccinations when the vaccination will cause harm. Therefore, I can see nothing but an affirmative ballot