Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

Its going to be K, theory, topicality, 1AC --- K SHELL Text - Compulsory immunization leads to an increase in biopower which is unjust A) Link FORCING PEOPLE TO COMPULSORILY VACCINATE AND THEREFORE MANDATORILY RECEIVE SOME LEVEL OF HEALTHCARE LEADS TO INCREASED BIOPOWER Chambon 1999 (Adrienne, director of Ph. D program at U Toronto, Ph. D in Social Work from U Chicago, Columbia University Press New York , Reading Foucault for Social Work, "Foucault's Approach," p. 66-7) In The Birth of the Clinic (1975) Foucault argued that the development of medicine did not limit itself to knowledge of illness and disease but extended its influence to ordinary behaviors, creating knowledge about the body and health and defining normality: Medicine must no longer be confined to a body of techniques for curing ills and of the knowledge that they require; it will also embrace a knowledge of healthy man, that is, a study of non-sick man and a definition of the model man. In the ordering of human existence it assumes a normative posture, which authorizes it not only to distribute advice as to healthy life, but also to dictate the standards for physical and moral relations of the individual and of the society in which he lives. (4) Here Foucault is questioning the mechanisms and the effects of "negative" and "positive" shaping (see chap. 7). On that basis we can view the rapid expansion of health promotion models (Lupton 1995), and even contemporary ethics, as current attempts to extend a normalizing influence over individuals and populations. > B) Impact INCREASED BIOPOWER LEADS TO INCREASED WARS AND GENOCIDES. Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. New York: Vintage, 1990 Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended; they are waged on the behalf of the ontological existence of everyone; entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity: massacres have become vital. It is as managers of life and survival, of bodies and the race, that so many regimes have been able to wage so many wars, causing so many men to be killed. And thorugh a turn that closes the circle, as the technology of wars has caused them to tend increasingly toward all-out destruction, the decision that initiates them and the one that terminates them are in fact increasingly informed by the naked question of survival. The atomic situation is now at the end point of this process: the power to expose a whole population to death is the underside of the power to guarantee an individual's continued existence. C) Alternative THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO RETRACE OUR WAYS OF KNOWING BY GENEALOGY. CHAMBON '99 [FROM ABOVE] A genealogical approach to social work is an invitation to retrace specific ways of doing and knowing; to illuminate how operating assumptions have clustered together and changed over time; and to identify the events and circumstances that acted as turning points in our profession. At a time when "case management" is redefining the meaning of a "case," a genealogical inquiry requires that we set aside what we hold to be true about the nature of "the social work case" and that we retrace the history of its development and usage-that we examine the various forms the notion of case took over time, the different types of expertise it generated, and the diversity of responses. Adopting a genealogical perspective is to ask ourselves how we have come to define a case the way we do now and what that presupposes. Other practices can equally be examined, such as the "problem-solving" rationality, or the ways in which we understand and intervene in the family. -- THEORY A) Interpretation - Debate should not have ground skew; ground skew allows one debater to structurally be able to win easier without necessarily being the better debater and is therefore unfair. Reciprocal burdens are also key to fairness because it alters the structure upon with the debate is premised upon. B) Violation - Observation 2 on the 1AC allows the affirmative debater to advocate any amount of the population being immunized, meaning that the resolution a) becomes nonsensical because the affirmative ground could also be 0% of the population being compulsorily immunized which would be the only negative ground thereby positing that affirming and negating are equivalent whereas two contradictory actions cannot b) structurally skews the debate because it does not allow the negative debater to i) make solvency disads ii) make vaccine disads specific to certain groups iii) make arguments regarding exemptions for certain groups of people C) Standards The standard are reciprocity and ground skew. The violations above both link back into ground skew and reciprocity because it holds me to a higher standard and steals negative ground. D) Voter The voter is fairness. Fairness is key because it allows debate to be structurally and substantively smooth; moreover, debate is structured like a game as there are strategic advantages for certain arguments to be made. Also, people won't play an unfair game so to maintain debate as a practice, debate needs to be fair. Fairness leads to education because education is the favorable outcome of debate and insofar as people won't play this game, debate isn't educational either meaning that fairness is a prerequisite for education. This means that you will reject the affirmative debater because we don't know what would have happened if this debate were not skewed as he has skewed this debate to favor him. -- TOPICALITY A) Interpretation - Justify is defined by OED as to show to be just B) Violation - This places an intrinsic burden on the affirmative to show the policy action in question just, not more just or less just. The 2nd contention deals with voluntary immunization which is A) not proving the truth value and B) irrelevant to the context of this debate since I'm not running that counterplan. The 1st contention deals with saving lives but there are other negative rights too such as that of autonomy. Just because have life doesn't necessarily guarantee we are autonomous as we can all be in cages and have life but not autonomy. C) Standards - my interpretation is the same as my opponents; I show that my opponent doesn't meet his own interpretation D) Voters - the purpose of debate is for the affirmative to prove the resolution true; insofar as my opponent doesn't meet this implicit burden it becomes impossible to affirm. --- 1AC Go to the value stuff - the value/standard debate doesn't matter insofar as I'm proving that the resolution is not true; we can have multiple methods of achieving the same goal goal - to prove or disprove the truth value of the resolution. 2nd, I link because genocide leads to suffering. Go to O1 - there is no solvency mechanism for the WHO; its just a claim. Go to O2 - cross apply theory here. C2 is irrelevant - not an independent reason to affirm as there are a) other alternatives besides voluntary like the genealogy alt I'm giving and b) I'm not advocating voluntary. C1: A) Cross apply the T violation here; we can have people living and still have them suffering, meaning this is insufficient to affirm. B) This is nonunique; genealogy would lead us to finding the issues regarding compulsory and biopower and would eventually fix it. This means that I'm also solving for these problems. C) Certain minorities do not have access to diseases in the status quo, meaning herd immunity may not be achieved. Hospital closures result in lost access. CLARK 05 [Hospital Flight From Minority Communities: How Our Existing Civil Rights Framework Fosters Racial Inequality In Healthcare," DePaul Journal of Health Care Law] These closures have primarily occurred in urban areas with the greatest need and least resources. Remaining hospitals willing to care for minorities or the poor are either located far enough away that timely