Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

I negate the resolution that public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations. I offer the following definitions for clarification: -Public health concern is defined by Merriam Webster as concern for the health of the community as a whole. -Justify is defined by Webster's New World Dictionary as "to show to be right or fair". -Compulsory immunizations are vaccines that are mandatory as issued by a government or the World Health Organization. I offer the following observation for clarification: My observation concerns the herd immunity threshold. The herd immunity threshold is the percent of people in a community that need to be vaccinated to prevent a disease from spreading. For example, the herd immunity threshold for small pox is 83-85%. This means that 83-85% of the community needs to be vaccinated in order for small pox to be suppressed. Now, my observation: Voluntary immunizations regularly exceed the herd immunity threshold. For example, voluntary immunization rates are 98%. In Scandinavian countries like Norway and Sweden have immunization rates of 90-93%. Moving on to my values. Value Premise: Justice. Justice is defined as giving each person his or her fair due. Justice is the value for this round because the resolution asks us whether compulsory immunizations are justified. Value Criterion: Upholding individual rights. When someone's rights are infringed upon, justice is not enabled. Issuing compulsory immunizations infringe upon a person's rights, therefore compulsory immunizations are unjust. Contention 1: Forcing a person to take a vaccine is unjust. By issuing compulsory vaccines, the government issuing the vaccine is acting unjustly because they do not allow the public to decide whether or not they want to get a vaccine. Subpoint A: When someone goes through surgery, the surgeon makes sure that the patient fully understands the risks of the surgery and tells them outright what may happen negatively as a result of the surgery. The patient then is given a choice whether to take the risk and go through with the surgery or not. Vaccines can potentially lead to negative side affects. Through voluntary immunization one can choose for themselves if the risk of a negative side effect occurring is worth the benefits the vaccine may offer. Through compulsory immunization, the government chooses whether you should risk getting a vaccine or not. Subpoint B: When a government issues a compulsory vaccine, everyone is forced to get the vaccine. While you can get a medical exemption if you have proof that the vaccine will effect you negatively, it doesn't mean that many people have negative side effects to vaccines. Red Cross Nurse Pamela Jordin said, "I used to work in a private nursing home, we would not give flu shots because the one time we did, it made everyone sick and three people died. All other years, no shots, only a couple of people would get the flu and no one died from it. We heard the same story from other elder care faculties. I would not want to be in a state or federal institution." Contention 2: Issuing compulsory vaccines intervene with religious beliefs, and can become violent. Subpoint A: When governments issue compulsory vaccines it goes against some people's beliefs. For example, because some vaccines are made with human fetal tissue, conservative Christians sometimes refuse vaccines, as do Islamic people. In most countries, people are allowed to practice their own religion. Therefore, compulsory vaccines go against the constitution of these countries. This is because if a person's religion says that they may not take vaccines, but their government is making them, they are not allowing them to honor their religion. Subpoint B: Violence has broken out several times as a result of compulsory vaccines being issued. For example, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil a Vaccine Revolt broke out after compulsory vaccines were issued. The revolt consisted of several riots that resulted in substantial property damage and several deaths. In India, there was a revolt against compulsory immunizations as well. When officials came to people's homes to forcibly vaccinate them, the parents would hide their children. The forcible vaccinations proved to be counter-productive as well. Before compulsory vaccinations were issued, the number of vaccinations in one district averaged 3000 a year. Once compulsory vaccinations were issued, the number fell to just 900. I now move on to my opponent's arguments. ======= Rebuttal ======= Observation: I agree to your observation that compulsory immunizations allow exceptions. VP: My opponent says we can't have a good quality of life and we "can't enjoy anything" unless our life is "free of disease and illness". Well, I've been sick before, and I still have a good quality of life. My value should be used to judge this round because the resolution asks whether compulsory immunizations are just. VC: My value criterion is a prerequisite to my opponent's because upholding one's individual rights is far more important than government protecting people from themselves. If the government had to choose between the two, it is quite obvious that the government would protect their citizen's rights and trust that they will make the best choices for themselves. Furthermore, the state does not need to issue compulsory immunizations to protect their people from disease because as long as the herd immunity threshold is achieved the community is protected. C1: A - I agree that vaccines do not cause autism. B – While vaccines are generally safe, they are examples of the vaccines causing unexpected harm. If you look to my contention 1, subpoint b you can see how vaccines can cause harm unexpectedly. C2: My opponent is basically saying here that because some people have less of a chance for getting screenings for cancer, they will not be vaccinated if voluntary vaccinations are issued. This is untrue. If a vaccine comes out, and someone does not have a medical, religious, or philosophical reason to not get the vaccine, that person will get the vaccine. My opponent says that voluntary immunization programs do not reach disadvantaged members of society. The same can be argued against compulsory vaccination programs for illegal immigrants. Compulsory immunization programs do not reach illegal immigrants because the government does not have record of them. I am not supporting immigrating illegally, but if enough people remain unvaccinated, herd immunity is not reached. Through voluntary immunizations, these people can be reached, preventing a possible outbreak. My opponent also claims that voluntary immunizations do not achieve herd immunity, but he provides no warrant (evidence) to support this claim. I, in my observation, give several examples of voluntary immunizations achieving herd immunity. I also give an example of compulsory immunizations LOWERING the immunization rate to less than one-third of where it was before. For all these reasons I urge you to negate. Good luck to my opponent, and I await his rebuttal.