Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

NEGATIVE- --"Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it" and because I agree with Mikhail Bukunin, I negate the resolution. Resolved- public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. Value- Individualism- the theory that the principle concern of all political and social groupings is to preserve the rights, guarantee the independence, and enhance the development of the individual person. According to Jeremy Bantham, "each person is the best and final judge of his or her own interest. The individual should NEVER be hindered by authority, state, or institution from securing his or her own interests." Criterion- The Categorical Imperative- The cat. imp. is a deantological theory that focuses on the morality of the MEANS, not the ends. When determining whether an act is moral or justified we must look at the process, not only the end result. If the means are not just, then it does not even matter what the final result is. One should strive to live an ethical life but always for the proper and correct reasons! Contention 1- Ethical action is based on personal duty not gov. coercion. the categorical imperative maintains that every individual has a natural element of personal duty in his life. the basis for all ethical action is personal duty. Duty cannot be determined my government policy. Ethical duty must be developed within ones self and based on universal principles. in this way, compulsory immunization CANNOT be justified. Yes. I am not arguing that immunization itself is unjust, but that government coercion for vaccination is not just. Regardless if the end result id a physically healthier society. For example, there is a student who wants to get an A. The end result, the A, is certainly a food thing, but if in order to receive that A, he results to cheating, the end was never really good! Coercion and force by ones government cannot be just. the government exists solely to protect the rights of the individual! Contention 2- Coercive immunizations are Specifically not justified According to David Isaac's, in the Journal of Pediatric and Child Heath, "Compulsory Immunization will be regarded by many as justifiable terms of the benefit to the individual child and to the community. But, in order to respect autonomy, state coercion should be kept to a minimum! in general, children should not be compulsory immunized when similar results can be achieved through education and inducements. Australia is in the happy position of having achieved very high rates of routine childhood immunization, over 90%, without the need for compilation. If citizens do not have the individual right to make decisions over what is put into their own body, what rights can they possibly have? now to argue some arguments brought up by the Aff- starting with arguements in their 1st contention- Religious objections are not valid. Though i do agree that the government had the right to step in to stop a religion from harming others (like human sacrafices ETC.) it is not just to force them to do something that they believe will send them to hell! Many religions believe that "what is meant to happen will, and cannot be stopped" who is the government to say that "HEy, we are sending you to hell!" Government coercion is not just! - Now my opponent has statued that i have the burden of proving it is unjust, and i have done so. in the last contention, arguements about schools closing were broguth up- I DO NOT DISAGREE THAT VACCINATIONS ARE GOOD- i but do not believe the government coercion is the JUST way of bringing people to get vacines. like i said in my last contention, Australia had a 90% vaccination rate, all due to eductaion! If we are to be more educated on taking vaccines we are to be more inclined to get vaccinations, without the government taking away our personal liberties! thank you