Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

I affirm the resolution that: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. To clarify, I tender the following definitions and observations. Public health concerns: "matters relating to the overall health of a population in a general sense." (Interviews with public health professors and professionals, Yale School of Public Health, Yale University, 5-10 October 2009.) Justify: to show to be just, right, or reasonable Merriam-Webster Dictionary Compulsory: Mandatory Merriam-Webster Dictionary Immunization: The process of inducing immunity through inoculation or vaccination. Web-MD Observation One: My advocacy The resolution does not specify an actor. It doesn't say who decides when immunization is mandatory. Rather than giving this power to individual, potentially corrupt, governments, I advocate that the decision should come down to the World Health Organization as it is the current leading entity in the global field of vaccination. Observation Two: Compulsory does not mean complete. Compulsory immunization does not necessarily mean that 100% of people will be vaccinated. It does not mean that exceptions cannot be made for those whose allergies or medical conditions would jeopardize their safety if they were vaccinated. Medical professionals still have the ability to withhold immunization in cases where it would do more harm than good, however, individuals can no longer exempt, i.e. the immunizations are still compulsory because they are mandatory. === The Value is morality, or the judgment of right and wrong, because the term 'justify' asks us the question of right and wrong. The Criterion is reduction of human suffering. This is the standard for 3 reasons. (1) One, this is implicit in the resolution. The goal of maintaining public health is to reduce human suffering. The purpose of immunization is to prevent disease, because disease causes suffering. Thus, both the terms 'public health concerns' and 'compulsory immunization' dictate that we are debating reduction of suffering. (2) Two, morality and increasing suffering are mutually exclusive. One can never simultaneously make both the claims that they are acting morally and they are allowing humans to suffer. (3) Three, Ends-based evaluation is the only accurate assessment of morality, because it is the only way to give humans equal protection of rights. There is no morally relevant distinction between persons because everyone is equally human, and thus equally deserving of protection. Martha Nussbaum contends: The accident of where one is born is just that, an accident. Recognizing this, we should not allow differences of nationality or class or even gender to erect barriers between us and our fellow human beings. We should recognize humanity wherever it occurs and give all equal respect. We should give our first allegiance to no mere form of government, no temporal power, but to the moral community made up by the humanity of all human beings. One should always behave so as to treat with equal respect the dignity of reason and moral choice in every human being. Martha Nussbaum [Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism,The Boston Review 1994 http://www.soci.niu.edu...] Thus, the affirmative's burden is to prove that affirming the resolution would lead to less human suffering than negating. In so far as I meet this burden, I win the round. === Contention One: Compulsory immunization maintains the herd immunity threshold. According to the CDC, the herd immunity threshold, or HIT, is the proportion of individuals in the population above which a disease may no longer persist, and so long as we maintain an immunization rate above the HIT for a particular disease, it becomes virtually impossible for that disease to spread. The CDC has accurately determined the HIT for almost all of the most dangerous diseases. It varies by disease based on the virulence of that particular disease, as well as the effectiveness of the vaccine. For example, the herd immunity threshold is 94% immunization for Measles and Pertussis, 86% for Polio, and 85% for Diphtheria and Smallpox. The Michigan Law Review argues: In the past decade, personal belief exemptions have increased [by 200%] nationally, This trend is troubling—even a small increase in the use of exemptions translates to a higher percentage of unvaccinated individuals, which threatens "herd immunity." Consequently, recent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease throughout the country have been directly attributed to the use of personal belief exemptions. For example, according to the CDC, cases of measles have reached a ten-year high; with over half of the cases involving children whose parents refused to immunize their children. There is a strong public health argument in favor of strengthening existing measures to obtain the highest vaccination coverage rates to ensure community protection. Alexandra M. Stewart, Commentary, Challenging Personal Belief Immunization Exceptions: Considering Legal Responses, 107 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 105 (2009), http://www.michiganlawreview.org.... As long as we maintain appropriate levels of immunization, outbreaks of dangerous disease do not spread, because they are confined by the natural boundaries that heard immunity sets. When levels of immunization dip below the herd immunity threshold, there is no longer sufficient protection to stop the disease from spreading; this can turn minor outbreaks in small communities into cross-country pandemics. === Contention Two: Voluntary immunization ostracizes the poor. Harvard Professor and Chairman of the Department of Global Health and Population, David Bloom, explains: "The World Health Organization, for example, has estimated that polio eradication will save governments $1.5 billion per year in vaccine, treatment, and rehabilitation costs. Estimates are that the $100 million invested in eradicating [smallpox] in the ten years after 1967 "saved the world about $1.35 billion a year". And the US Institute of Medicine reports that for every dollar spent on the MMR vaccine, $21 is saved." Bloom, David (2004): "Eradication versus control: the economics of global infectious disease policies", Bulletin of the World Health Organization, September 2004; 82: 683–8. However, despite the clear economic benefit, these vaccines are not being implemented in the indigent, third world countries that need them most, because the citizens are too poor to afford the vaccinations themselves. This means that the governments and pharmaceutical companies foot the bill. Bloom continues: The profitability deficit for developing-world vaccines is huge. The developing-world vaccine market is estimated at just 10-15 per cent of the world total. The total volume of all vaccine doses acquired by UNICEF for distribution in the developing world is 100 times greater than the number of doses delivered in the US, but brings in less than half the revenue. Governments in poor countries are more concerned with cost. Products have therefore begun to diverge, even when they tackle the same illness, and the new vaccines that respond to developed-world demands are often too expensive for poor countries… Pharmaceutical companies have found it difficult to persuade shareholders of the value of continuing to develop vaccines for poor countries. The pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, for example, reported in 2001 that it was planning to allocate its freeze-drying capacity to the influenzae B vaccine rather than the less profitable meningitis A/C vaccine. Moreover, doses of the DTwP vaccine offered to UNICEF declined from 600 million in 1998 to 150 million two years later. In the Status quo, the poorest, most disease-ridden countries are being given the least protection. This only exacerbates the suffering in those who are already suffering most. ===