Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

I affirm the resolution, Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. For clarification of this debate round, I offer the following definitions from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. Public: of or relating to people in general Health: the condition of being sound in body, mind, or spirit; especially: freedom from physical disease or pain Public Health: the art and science dealing with the protection and improvement of community health by organized community effort and including preventive medicine and sanitary and social science Concerns:to be a care, trouble, or distress to Justify:to show a sufficient lawful reason for an act done Compulsory: mandatory, enforced Immunization: to make immune from disease Immune:having a high degree of resistance to a disease My value for this round will be that of justice. Because the resolution concerns whether immunizations are just, the value of justice is of paramount value in this debate. Justice is defined as "the quality of being just, impartial, or fair." The criterion with which I will be upholding my value is that of utilitarianism , which states "that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number". Only by ensuring "the greatest happiness of the greatest number," can one be just, impartial, or fair. Observation: Because the resolution does not specify any specific community, we cannot limit this debate to any particular society, community or nation. This debate must be about the international community. Contention 1: Immunizations guarantee the greatest good for the greatest number of people. A: Immunizations are effective in remedying public health concerns. The World Health Organization states that, "Immunization is a proven tool for controlling and eliminating life-threatening infectious diseases and is estimated to avert over 2 million deaths each year." The World Health Organization also states that, "An immunization campaign carried out by the World Health Organization (WHO) from 1967 to 1977 eradicated the natural occurrence of smallpox." B: Through its cost effectiveness, immunizations reach the greatest number of people. The World Health Organization further states that, "It [immunization] is one of the most cost-effective health investments," and that, "A recent study estimated that a one-week "supplemental immunization activity" against measles carried out in Kenya in 2002 ─ in which 12.8 million children were vaccinated — would result in a net saving in health costs of US$ 12 million over the following ten years," while preventing 3.85 million cases of measles and 125,000 deaths. Cost-benefit analysis also shows that every dollar spent on immunization in the United States saves up to $27. From a purely materialistic and economic perspective, that is a 2600% profit. C: Immunization reaches the greatest number of people due to its accessibility. The World Health Organization states that immunizations are "accessible to even the most hard-to-reach and vulnerable populations" Contention 2: If immunizations are not compulsory less people will choose to get them or have access to them. A: The World Health Organization states that pharmaceutical companies are reluctant to manufacture immunizations because it is difficult for producers to forecast the demand for the immunizations. B: Making immunizations compulsory removes the need to forecast the demand since everyone will be required to get them, and so the producers will make enough immunizations. C: Therefore by affirming the resolution, utilitarianism is achieved and through that, justice. Contention 3: Negating the resolution causes diseases to spread and people to die, especially in third world countries. Because negating causes the most deaths to occur in underprivileged nations, it is a form of discrimination. A: According to the CDC, if we stopped immunizing the number of cases of Measles, Polio, Type b (Hib) Meningitis, Hepatitis B, Pertussis (Whooping Cough), Pneumococcal, Rubella (German Measles), Varicella (Chickenpox), Diphtheria, Tetanus (Lockjaw) and Mumps would dramatically increase, particularly in developing countries. B: Therefore, negating is a form of discrimination, since it affects mostly citizens of developing nations. C: Because negating equates to discrimination, it can in no way be considered in close to justice. Contention 4: Negating violates individual liberties. A: According to the French Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen, "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law." The American Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Therefore, negating the resolution on the basis of freedom is unfounded. B: By not immunizing, one is infringing upon the rights of others by voluntarily spreading diseases and violating the "unalienable Rights" as set forth by the Declaration of Independence. C: Condoning and supporting the violation of individual liberties is not only unjust but also inhumane. Negating is therefore, unjust. D: Therefore, only by immunization and so ensuring the good of the greatest number of people can one be just. Just to summarize my whole case, immunizations are just because they ensure the greatest good for the greatest number of people and in that way they are fair and impartial. Negating the resolution is not just because it equates to discrimination and infringes upon individual rights and liberties. Therefore, I urge you to vote affirmative, in order to achieve utilitarianism and thereby justice.