Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

When it comes to public health concerns, most people agree that the safety of the overall public is more important than the limitation of an individual's autonomy. I affirm the resolution Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations In order to clarify the debate, I offer the following definitions 1. Public health from Oxford English Dictionary, 2008: The health of the population as a whole, esp. as monitored, regulated, and promoted by the state (by provision of sanitation, vaccination, etc.) 2. Justify from the Oxford English Dictionary, 1989: To show or maintain the justice or reasonableness of (an action, claim, etc.); to adduce grounds for; to defend as right or proper. 3. Compulsory from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law: Required or compelled by law. 4. Immunization from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: To produce immunity in, as by inoculation. Observation: Compulsory isn't synonymous with universal. The former allows exceptions (for example, religious objections), while the latter doesn't. VP: Quality of Life- Without a good quality of life free of disease and illness, one cannot enjoy anything else. Thus, quality of life should be the paramount value in this debate. Whichever side shows that the quality of life is most increased, wins. VC: Hobbe's Social Contract- My criterion will be Thomas Hobbe's social contract. Hobbe's theory states that human beings do not always act rationally, therefore, the purpose of the state is to protect human beings from themselves. In joining a society under a state sovereign, the individuals have some of their rights limited for the common good. The state has the responsibility for the wellbeing of their people from diseases, and compulsory immunizations maximize the quality of life, they are justified. C1: Vaccines are safe A divergence between individual and community benefits may also exist when there are ideological beliefs incongruent with vaccination or individuals are unaware of or do not accept available scientific evidence. Ideological beliefs that may influence persons to forgo vaccination include religious issues (i.e. the use of cell lines from aborted fetuses to make vaccine) and a general belief that 'natural' disease is preferable to vaccines. Recent controversy surrounding association between the MMR vaccine and autism exemplify situations where some individuals perceive the individual risks of vaccination to outweigh the benefits. Despite carefully designed epidemiological studies and reviews by external groups finding no association between MMR vaccines and autism, a substantial proportion of parents maintain a belief that vaccines cause autism. From the perspective of these parents, the benefits of MMR vaccination may not outweigh the (perceived) autism risk. The community risk/benefit analysis is likewise dependent on one's knowledge base and perception of the science – undoubtedly individual vaccine refusal can lead to resurgence of disease. Vaccines are actually very safe, despite implications to the contrary in many anti-vaccine publications (which sometimes contain the number of reports received by VAERS, and allow the reader to infer that all of them represent genuine vaccine side-effects). Most vaccine adverse events are minor and temporary, such as a sore arm or mild fever. These can often be controlled by taking acetaminophen before or after vaccination. More serious adverse events occur rarely (on the order of one per thousands to one per millions of doses), and some are so rare that risk cannot be accurately assessed. As for vaccines causing death, again so few deaths can plausibly be attributed to vaccines that it is hard to assess the risk statistically. Of all deaths reported to VAERS between 1990 and 1992, only one is believed to be even possibly associated with a vaccine. Each death reported to VAERS is thoroughly examined to ensure that it is not related to a new vaccine-related problem, but little or no evidence suggests that vaccines have contributed to any of the reported deaths. The Institute of Medicine in its 1994 report states that the risk of death from vaccines is "extraordinarily low." As you can see the positives of affirming the resolution and thus increasing the quality of life outweighs the negatives of affirming. C2: Voluntary Immunizations do not work Voluntary vaccinations do not reach to large segment of the population. In theory, both compulsory and voluntary vaccination programs allow all individuals access to treatment. However, as Saraiya et al. pointed out, racial and socioeconomic inequalities exist in incidence patterns of cervical cancer and in cervical cancer screening rates. For example, these researchers found that in the United States, incidence of cervical cancer was 50% higher among African American women and 66% higher among Hispanic women than among White women. These groups not only have greater risk for cancer but also have lower rates of screening, do not receive the same beneﬁts from screening as do other populations, and are therefore at greatest risk of being missed by voluntary vaccine initiatives. As you can see compulsory vaccination programs, are a better alternative for ensuring immunity to the disease because disadvantaged populations will have access to the vaccinations at little or no cost, unlike voluntary vaccinations. Another important point is that voluntary vaccinations do not reach herd immunity. Herd immunity is defined as from medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com: The resistance of a group to attack by a disease to which a large portion of the members are immune. Voluntary vaccinations fail to achieve herd immunity because simply put not enough people receive the vaccinations. Herd immunity is important point because it allows people can't get vaccinated (underlying health conditions, religious objections) are protected because the majority of the population is immune.