Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations.

----------------------------------------------------------- My opponent starts off in saying that utilitarianism is faulted in that if 3/4 of everyone were awful and 1/4 were wonderful, utilitarianism says we should save the biggest number of people possible. She says that morally we should keep the 1/4 alive instead of the 3/4. But this would mean that it were morally acceptable to allow death. But whether or not allowing death is moral is simply an opinion with no proof one way or another. In addition to that when looking at the world today I think we can agree that 1/4 of the world's population is not awful therefore it would be moral to save the most amount of lives. My opponents second point is that there are many variables and that this is a hasty decision because we don't know the long term affects. However, no evidence or examples are given as to what these negative effects or variables may be. Immunizations have been around for over 40 years and the effects they have had is that they have eliminated disease and saved lives which is completely moral. The next thing that is said is that my opponent does not see why the fact that when people refuse to be immunized they can be hosts allowing the disease to be spread. She says that because we have an immunization we have a cure so if someone is infected they can be cured no problem. This is wrong for three reasons. One is this is assuming that they will instantly detect the disease and get treatment. If for whatever reason they do not get treatment soon enough then they can die. The second reason is, as my opponent says later on in her own point, people are allergic to certain reasons. Even with immunizations there are very small amounts of people who are allergic to them. So if they get infected they can not receive immunizations and may die. The third reason is that for babies to receive all of their immunizations this takes almost a year, in that time they can be infected, and because their immune system is weak they have an even greater chance of dying. So going back to John Mill's harm principle people only have the right to govern themselves when it doesn't affect other people. When people refuse to get immunizations they are unfairly affecting others and putting them at risk. This is why when we have compulsory immunization we would reach herd immunity saving all of these people Next my opponent mentions how the government's job is to protect the rights of the people. She also says that humans are born with certain universal, inalienable rights that no government should ever take away and that the right over your own body is one of them. While there are certain universal rights, such as life, that is not one of them. I would like to bring up social contract here. Social contract states that when someone joins society they give up certain rights to the government so that the government can protect other more important rights. My opponent is right in that the government's job is to protect the rights of the people and as I mentioned one of those is life. By requiring immunizations the government is saving the most lives of their people thus they are doing their duty. The next point mentioned is that some people are allergic to certain medicines. I have already addressed this above and talked about how this is a reason why we need immunizations. I would also like to say here that these people would not be required to take the immunizations because when looking back in history at compulsory immunizations. When around the world they were eradicating small pox and other diseases, in the UK, US and other countries those who were allergic were not required to receive the immunizations. The last point touched on is the negative impacts disease has on the economy. Here my opponent says she does not agree with the government running the economy. However, these compulsory immunizations could be occurring in any society such as socialist, communist, etc. Therefore regardless of what government we prefer we have to debate as if it is taking place in any society. Also even in the US where we are supposed to be a capitalist society the government still meddles in the economy. Second she says that when people die others benefit. But the number of people benefiting is much smaller than the number of people who are hurt by it so the overall economy is hurt. In addition when you weigh this morally as this debate should be done it is far more moral to save lives than it is to allow people to gain financially.