Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations.

This is an Lincoln-Douglass debate November/December topic and this debate should be done just like the LD debate format except the CON goes last and there is no cross-examination session for questioning. "It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong" Because I agree with Jeremy Bentham (Philosopher and activist 1748-1832), I affirm the resolution which states: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. For further clarification I offer the following definitions that I am using for this debate round. Public health concerns- the approach to health that is concerned with the safety of the community as a whole. Justify- to show or have had a legally sufficient reason or cause. Compulsory immunization- vaccinations, to increase immunity, reasonably required or compelled by law. I will be valuing SOCIETAL WELFARE, which is paramount when considering the well being of the community as a whole. This value relates to the resolution because the well being of the community is dependent upon the society to decide, what the best action is to take when deciding society vs. the individual. You will see that with societal welfare, the greatest number ought to be valued more than the minority. My criterion will be that of RULE UTILITARIANISM developed my John Stuart Mill. It establishes moral rules and sets forth the role of the government. With this there is one principle that explains where the restriction of liberty is justified. Harms principle: The legitimate reason for social restriction is to prevent a person from harming others. I would classify the action, choosing to be immunized or not, other-regarding. This type of action involves any other individual in a society and can be subject to restriction if necessary. It also states you may protect people against harms that violate their rights. This is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This relates to the resolution and achieves my value in many ways. If you don't get immunized during a public health concern and it has a risk of affect on any individual of a society then it should be required by law to be immunized. Contention 1: Compulsory immunizations prevent the spread of disease in a society. A quote on what immunizations do from cdc.gov states "If a child is not vaccinated and is exposed to a disease germ, the child's body may not be strong enough to fight the disease. Before vaccines, many children died from diseases that vaccines now prevent, such as whooping cough, measles, and polio. Those same germs exist today, but babies are now protected by vaccines so we do not see these diseases as often." This not only explains the importance of immunization during childhood but explains the importance of preparing each individual for a disease, and as to why we don't see these diseases often, it's because the disease is prevented from being spread easily. If children and any other individual weren't immunized for a disease, especially during a public health concern,then the disease could spread faster and cause more problems for our society. The immunizations prevent spread and it justifies compulsory immunization. Contention 2: Compulsory immunizations are the greatest good for all individuals' safety. A court case in western district of Arkansas, McCarthy vs. Boozman, that I found on vaccinesafety.edu states "It has long been set that individual rights must be subordinated to the compelling state interest of protecting society against the spread of disease." That is the constitutionality of The United States, an example of a legitimate society. Individuals are immunized to receive a small portion a small portion of the disease, not enough to cause the actual disease, but enough to cause the immune system to create antibodies. It's proved to grant safety to society to receive immunizations during a public health concern and it is for the individuals' best interest to decrease their risk of catching that disease they're immunized for. An individual shouldn't have a right, to not be immunized, when it can effect others. To promote societal welfare, the greatest good for the greatest number. Compulsory immunizations are acceptable, necessary, and justified, when deciding for the safety of not only the society, but the individuals. Contention 3: Compulsory immunizations are justified and do effect others of whether or not you get immunized. Schools require compulsory immunization, why would they if it didn't effect others. A quote, also taken from cdc.gov states "immunizing individual children also helps to protect the health of our community, especially those who are not immunized. People who are not immunized include those who are too young to be vaccinated, those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons and those who cannot make an adequate response to vaccination. Also protected, therefore, are people who received a vaccine, but who have not developed immunity. In addition, people who are sick will be less likely, to be exposed to disease germs that can be passed around by unvaccinated children. immunizations also slows down or stops disease outbreaks." To further be explained, the people not immunized are either too young , have a medical issue, or have failed to create antibodies and so they can't receive the immunization and are exempt from compulsory immunization. If you can receive the immunization and don't do it, that gives you a higher risk of being exposed to the disease and therefore gives the people who can't be immunized a higher risk of being exposed to the disease as well. To worry about the society, at the same time, worries about the individuals, That is why societal welfare is the best value to consider in this debate. Along with my criterion, rule utilitarianism, the society has a justified reason for compulsory immunization, especially during a public health concern.