Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

This is one of John Mill's harm principles. Freedoms are limited, we must have our basic needs and a safe environment to live in, without these things freedom cannot be exercised freely. When society goes without immunization it is bad for society as a whole; however, with compulsory immunization we could eliminate diseases and wouldn't have to worry about them in the future. When more lives are saved there is more happiness in society, which minimizes suffering and in turn achieves utilitarianism and maximum public safety. Therefore I affirm today's resolution "Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization" My value for this round is utilitarianism because most of my information falls under John Stuart Mill's harm principle, Mill was English philosopher who created the term utilitarianism. My criterion is public safety. Utilitarianism is defined as the greatest good for the greatest number of people and public safety is defined as the quality of averting or not causing danger, or loss to population as a whole, according to random house dictionary. So, If we have the greatest good, we achieve the maximum public safety. I'd like to start off with a few definitions from Random House Dictionary: Public health: health services to improve and protect community health, esp. sanitation, immunization, and preventive medicine. Concerns: to trouble, worry, or disquiet Justify: to defend or uphold as well-grounded Compulsory immunization: required or mandatory vaccination that makes an individual immune, as against a disease, only exemptions by law. Observation 1: LD is a moral debate, and with this debate you must choose the side which upholds their value and criterion better than their opponent, through the side's arguments and how it relates to today's resolution. Throughout my case I will show examples of reports where immunizations have helped. Also, in my arguments you will see me uphold my value and criterion extremely well, numerous times. To win this debate I must show you why my values triumphs my opponents and why I should when today's debate. Observation 2: For my opponent to successfully when this debate they must uphold their value and criterion better than I do and show this through their arguments. They must show why there should be no possibility for compulsory immunization. Governments must have all options on the table, and to affirm my side is to keep this option on the table, to affirm their side is to completely eliminate any chance of compulsory immunization. This is like nuclear weapons we don't use them, but the option is there if it comes to that. Affirming the negative is to say eliminate any possibility of these nuclear weapons. Also, if they drop ANY of my arguments, observations, sub points, value or criterion my opponent should lose this debate. They should also concede if I have better arguments that tie to the resolution and contentions. Also, just as a reminder opponents my not bring up new arguments after attack Contention One: Compulsory immunization eliminates disease and prevents it from returning. Sub point A: In countries where there is compulsory vaccination of children, the argument presented by governments is that the mass vaccination of children from birth will help to eradicate and prevent various diseases from existing in the country. Prior to a vaccine for polio, between 13,000 and 20,000 cases were reported just in the USA annually. In 1988, the World Health Organization decided to try and eradicate polio worldwide, and as of today the disease has been removed from the USA, Western Pacific and Europe. Only four countries are endemic, and there are just 2000 cases reported worldwide as of 2009. Sub point B: By stopping vaccination before the disease is widely eradicated leaves countries susceptible to future unexpected outbreaks. Polio is just one example of how vaccines can prevent and eradicate diseases that have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths throughout the past century. Although some may argue that with diseases such as Polio wiped out in most of the world a vaccine is not necessary. However any reduction in the number of people vaccinated against the disease would leave a window of opportunity for the disease to rear up once again. People tend to under estimate the dangers of disease especially if they have not experienced the effects. Contention Two: Compulsory Immunizations are necessary to protect the rights' of others. The good thing about immunization is that if the majority of the people get the vaccination, the disease can almost completely be eliminated from society. If the population is immunized under that amount, it is still possible for diseases to have significant outbreaks. This concept is often referred to as herd immunization. Sub point A: Herd immunization is important because it minimizes the chances of those not vaccinated or those not able to be vaccinated chances of getting serious diseases. If one person's choice is not to get immunized they are directly harming another's freedom from the disease. People in society ought to be required to get immunizations because it protects the rights of others. Sub point B: I believe we are given freedom in our world, but freedom with consequence. We protest against ideas we believe are wrong, demonstrating our right of freedom of speech, and get arrested, we practice our right of freedom in not getting vaccinations, and we see the consequences by directly putting others in danger. So when we exercise our right of freedom in not being forced to get an immunization, we are really taking away someone else's freedom. Therefore you really can't argue that compulsory immunizations take away your freedom, if in not getting them you're taking away other's freedoms. It's just hypocritical. Contention Three: Immunizations are cost efficient. Sub point A: The recent swine flu break out have cost different government around the world much more than it takes to produce and spread the vaccine. America has spent over $110,000 on swine flu, with most of the money going toward personnel costs, according to a report by the country's health official, this is just one example. It cost way less to just give and enforce a vaccine, because it is the most "cost-effective" way to save lives. Sub point B: If people were not have immunization, it also puts a burden on the health care system to treat all of those infected which must in some way be paid, which turns on the public. With compulsory immunizations, all of this can be avoided thus minimizing suffering, because the public will not have to pay extra tax for the treatment from health care system, in turn achieves utilitarianism. If people will not choose to make the right, justifiable, and sensible choice to be vaccinated, then the choice will be made for them. Vaccinations have undoubtedly saved millions of lives since their inception, the risks are minimal; the benefits are massive. However, without compulsion, the utilitarianism of these benefits would not be seen. Without compulsion, utilitarianism cannot be seen; therefore public safety is not achieved. As a result, I urge you to affirm the resolution.