Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

In a 1974 a report ascribing 36 reactions to whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine, a prominent public-health academic claimed that the vaccine was only marginally effective and questioned whether its benefits outweigh its risks, and extended television and press coverage caused a scare. Vaccine uptake in the UK decreased from 81% to 31% and whooping cough epidemics followed, leading to death Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. I affirm. Definitions and observations Public health: The approach to medicine that is concerned with the health of the community as a whole. Public health is community health. (MedTerms Dictionary.com) Justify: To show a satisfactory reason or excuse for something done (Random House Dictionary of Law, 2009) Compulsory: Required and mandated by law. Obligatory (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, 1996) Immunization: Treatment of an organism for the purpose of making it immune to subsequent attack by a particular pathogen, typically achieved by introducing the organism to the living or dead pathogen. OBSERVATION 1: The affirmative is not required to defend any specific immunization (flu, rubella, small pox, etc.), but rather is charged with defending the idea that immunization could ever be compelled. To add some clarity to the debate, I will defend making immunization compulsory when it meets the logical criteria set forth in the Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusettes as explained in the Cleveland State Law Review, (Alexis Osburn, Cleveland State Law Review, 2008, 56 Clev. St. L. Rev. 159, 18434 words, NOTE: IMMUNIZING AGAINST ADDICTION: THE ARGUMENT FOR INCORPORATING EMERGING ANTI-ADDICTION VACCINES INTO EXISTING COMPULSORY IMMUNIZATION STATUTES) Of the various tests proposed to guide states in making compulsory vaccination decisions, the test that should be used is the one identified in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. n209 The human rights test does take more legally significant factors into account than the nature of the disease test, but many of the factors it uses are inconsistent with those identified by the Supreme Court in Jacobson. n210 For a state-mandated vaccination to be upheld, all that needs to be shown is that the four factors set forth in Jacobson are met: a public health threat, a remedy bearing a substantial relation to preventing the threat, an application that is not arbitrary and oppressive, and medical exemptions for "unfit" citizens. n211 Anti-addiction vaccines satisfy all four of these elements. OBSERVATION 2: There are many instances when legitimate societies encroach on unfettered personal autonomy. This is the basis of all social contract theory. For example, in a state of nature, individuals have the right to personal retribution, but this right is relinquished to a society's law enforcement agencies and the judiciary to promote a greater good. Additionally, in a state of nature, individuals have unconstrained freedom of speech, but prohibiting an individual from exercising that freedom by falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater exists for the benefit of the greater good (namely those that would be trampled in the ensuing riot). The existence of these logical limits to personal autonomy make all negative claims of individual rights abuses non-unique, and delegitimize the idea of a slippery-slope to totalitarianism. My core value is Governmental Legitimacy. Governmental legitimacy is the preferred value in the round because government is the only entity with the legitimate right to compel individuals to behave in specific ways--in this case, to be immunized. Criterion is adherence to the fairness principle A government's obligation is to maximize communal benefit while minimizing costs. The natural rights of individuals provide constraints to governmental action, and the fairness theory explains what governmental actions are justified. This is explained in the book Toward a Liberal Theory of Political Obligation, "Put simply, a fairness theorist suggests that (1) a state may permissibly coerce its citizens because this coercion benefits these same constituents and (2) each citizen must obey the law as part of her fair share in sustaining the state's ability to provide these benefits." CONTENTION 1: COMPULSORY IMMUNIZATION PROVIDES INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS. Subpoint A: Being immunized is 1000 to 100,000 TIMES safer for the individual than failing to get immunized. Immunization therefore has substantial medical benefits for those individuals that receive them. Calandrillo, explains the dangers posed by diseases now preventable through immunizations substantially outweigh the risks introduced by vaccines. The CDC data indicate that vaccines are on the order of 1,000 to 100,000 times safer than running the risk of contracting any life-threatening diseases. Subpoint B:Compulsory immunization benefits 4 classes of individuals who cannot receive their own immunizations for legitimate, medical reasons and the government has an obligation to protect these vulnerable populations from avoidable harms even if it means compelling some individuals to get immunized. This is the basis of "herd immunity." Doctor Diekema, explainsbenefits provided by most vaccines extend beyond benefit to the individual who is immunized. There is also a significant public health benefit. Parents who choose not to immunize their own children increase the potential for harm to other persons in 4 important ways.14 First, should an unimmunized child contract disease, that child poses a potential threat to other unimmunized children. Second, even in a fully immunized population, a small percentage of immunized individuals will remain susceptible to disease. Third, some children cannot be immunized because of underlying medical conditions. These individuals derive important benefit from herd immunity and may be harmed by contracting disease from those who remain unimmunized. Finally, immunized individuals are harmed by the cost of medical care for those who choose not to immunize. Subpoint C: Achieving an equal right to life among all populations will require a trade-off with unfettered autonomy, but that trade-off is unavoidable and justified. Mann explains, "Freedom and equality, they contradict each other and can never come to an ideal union It is mankind's task to find a new equilibrium between them , in which it cannot be denied that the greatest possible realization of justice is met. Because compulsory vaccinations benefit both the individual being compelled to get vaccinated and the entire community, it meets the first criteria of the fairness principle. CONTENTION 2: IMMUNIZATIONS PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT'S ECONOMIC AND HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE, BETTER ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO FULFILL ITS OBLIGATIONS. Subpoint A: Immunization saves billions of dollars. Pasteur explains, "Vaccines certainly prevent death and suffering, but they also save money. Vaccination is one of the most cost-effective health-care investments available. In the United States, cost-benefit analysis indicates that every dollar invested in a vaccine dose saves US$2 to US$27 in health-care expenses. The eradication of smallpox has saved the United States more than US$3 billion. The benefits are just as striking if one looks to the future. Subpoint B: Immunizations benefit the economy in numerous ways. Harmon explains in Scientific American, "Immunization does not only save lives, it improves them," Houry, deputy executive director of UNICEF, said. It can also improve the health of a nation's economy. Even those who survive preventable childhood illnesses are often either physically disabled or less educated and are unable to contribute as much to the economy as Subpoint C: Because compulsory immunization helps a government meet its obligations to citizens, it meets the second criteria of the fairness principle, and is an independent reason to affirm.