Public Forum Modified: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

I respectfully request that the terms: vaccination, immunization, innoculation, and shots / shoots be deemed synonomous. NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE INTRODUCTION: I disagree with the stated resolution. The NEG/CON will demonstrate that compulsory vaccinations are not in the best interest of public health. STATEMENT OF RESOLUTION: Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. DEFINITIONS: Compulsory - Compelled; mandated by legal process or by statute. (source: www. courtinfo. ca. gov/jury/glossary. htm) Concern – something or someone that causes anxiety (source: wordnetweb. princeton. edu/perl/webwn) Further derivative; Worry - Worry is an emotion in which a person feels anxious or concerned about a real or imagined issue, ranging from personal issues such as health (source: en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Worry) VALUE PREMISE: Loss of individual freedom. Jonathan Shipley wrote in 1773 that "The true art of government consist in not governing too much. " (source: Yale Book of Quotations. ) VALUE CRITERION: How can country, based on the ideals of freedom, be compelled to take vaccinations? "That government is best which governs least". Thomas Paine (source: www. quotedb. com) Not only is this notion autocratic & directive in nature, but also much too ambiguous. CONTENTION ONE: Compulsory vaccinations are a deprivation of individual freedom. Look at the very definition of compulsory. Question: Exactly which article or amendment of the U. S. Constitution authorizes this? Answer: None of them. (source: . http://www.usconstitution.net...) So I ask you, by what authority is this even a consideration? America is supposed to be the land of the free. Little buy little, bit by bit, the government is taking our freedoms away, one by one. Making immunizations mandatory is just one more step in that direction. CONTENTION TWO: The subjective wording of this resolution is typical of a government that is stealing a liberty from her citizens. Under the clever disguise of ambiguity, the government is using seemingly innocent and protective verbiage to make immunizations compulsory. Can't you almost picture "big brother" placing a hand on your shoulder, looking at you with false concern, and saying something to the effect of, "This is for your own good"? SUB POINT A: Let's examine the word immunizations. Note the plurality of the word. Which immunizations would be compulsory? All of them? Perhaps a garden variety of: measles, mumps, scarlet fever, yellow fever, bubonic plague series, malaria, influenza, hepatitis, and polio? Well, while we're at it, since it doesn't specify, let's add in: gamma globulin, anthrax, tetanus, scarlet fever, and syphilis. The point is this, with the lack of clarity, we are a virtual pin cushion for LPNs. SUB POINT B: There is no mention whatsoever of exempting people with existing medical conditions. The fact is there are people who have severe reactions to vaccinations. "The purpose of VAERS is to detect possible signals of adverse events associated with vaccines". (source: www. fda. gov) How is it fair to make vaccinations compulsory for all individuals in the name of public health concern, when the very vaccinations they receive can put their lives in danger? CONTENTION THREE: Do public health concerns really justify this action? "Today I asked one of my colleagues "what makes swine flu different from the regular flu bug? " Her answer: "One is being talked about all day on TV and the other is not" (source: www. cnn. com) The average cost of a vaccine per dose, ranges from $15 to over $100 per person. (source: . http://www.cdc.gov...) The population of the United States as of 2008 is 304,059,724. (source: . http://quickfacts.census.gov...) "Some parents are unable to vaccinate their children because the shots are too expensive and too complicated, experts say". (source: . http://www.scrippsnews.com...) If the government made vaccinations compulsory, would the government be willing to pay for them? If so, then how? With tax dollars? Would it become Socialized? Would it not only force it's will on citizens, but would it also make them pay out of pocket or bill their insurance for this "mandatory/compulsory" list of vaccinations? CONCLUSION: Ladies and gentlemen, given the aforementioned information, it is crystal clear that the resolution, as stated, is unfair, unconstitutional, and far too ambiguous to hold merit. I have demonstrated reasonable doubt in the resolution without attacking my opponent. These are all facts, and they are undisputed. Thank you.