public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

AFF V: Natural Rights. These consist of the rights to life, liberty, and security of person. C: Achieving Herd Immunity. Herd immunity is the principle that the more people we immunize against disease, the better protected an entire society is. By achieving herd immunity, we not only protect individual citizens against epidemics, but the world community. 1. The principle of liberty, which is a requirement of all just states, requires compulsory immunization. A. Liberty does not entail absolute freedom. Citizens of a just government enjoy many rights. However, those rights are finite and governed by the principle of liberty, as discussed by John Stuart Mill. He elaborates: "Everything that makes life worth living for anyone depends on restraints being put on the actions of other people…So this is the appropriate region of human liberty…all this without hindrance from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do doesn't harm them even though they may think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong." To summarize, liberty gives a human being absolute freedom—excepting those actions which threaten the natural rights of others. This is the guiding principle behind compulsory immunizations, as well as a wide variety of other public concern legislation. Since those that I come into contact with are immediately put into danger if I am a carrier of disease, as well as the exponential number of people exposed after initial contact, refusing to vaccinate can be a violation of the principle of liberty. B. Objections other than medical violate the principle of liberty. If we use liberty as a weighing mechanism to examine the current objections to vaccinations, those being conscientious, medical, & religious, the only one to pass the acid test would be medical. Obviously, if the state mandates a vaccination that is likely, per expert medical diagnosis, to harm or kill an individual, the exemption is justified as it meets the standards of liberty. However, if there are no sound medical objections to contend with, then the individual's rights to autonomy, including parental autonomy, may and should be subjugated for the protection of the right to life of others. C. Violations of the principle of liberty with regards to immunization lead to unnecessary loss of human life. Alice Park details an outbreak of polio in Nigeria that occurred in 2001. The disastrous effects of the outbreak were caused directly by the violation of this principle of liberty and entirely preventable. She states: "That's what happened in the current measles outbreaks in the western U.S., and that's what happened in Nigeria in 2001, when religious and political leaders convinced parents that polio vaccines were dangerous and their kids should not receive them. Over the next six years, not only did Nigerian infection rates increase 30-fold, but the disease also broke free and ranged out to 10 other countries, many of which had previously been polio-free." 2. Immunizations are both medically sound and empirically beneficial to human survival of epidemics and pandemics. A. Vaccinations are safe for a vast majority of populations. Though little evidence is needed to prove this claim, vaccinations have been successfully used in myriad human populations to prevent and even eradicate diseases since the 17th Century. Alice Park states: "In the past century, vaccines against diphtheria, polio, pertussis, measles, mumps and rubella, not to mention the more recent additions of hepatitis B and chicken pox, have wired humans with powerful immune sentries to ward off uninvited invasions. And thanks to state laws requiring vaccinations for youngsters enrolling in kindergarten, the U.S. currently enjoys the highest immunization rate ever; 77% of children embarking on the first day of school are completely up to date on their recommended doses and most of the remaining children are missing just a few shots." Considering that a little over ï¿½ of U.S. schoolchildren alone are multi-vaccinated upon entering schools, the soundness of the vaccine is evident. A broader perspective is delivered by Dr. Michael Pazos: "To be clear, there is no such thing as a perfectly safe vaccine. Like any other medical treatment, there are side effects and risks involved…Most of the known risks are rare and relatively minor—most people are familiar with the redness and swelling following a flu shot—and the benefits of vaccination far outweigh them." B. Vaccines prevent not only individual but world protection against pandemic diseases. As Dr. Pazos stated previously, the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the minor risks. Dr. Pazos continues, discussing the concept of herd immunity: "...vaccines are broadly administered in order to establish what is referred to as "herd immunity." Most infectious diseases require a ready supply of healthy hosts in order to continue spreading. So, if enough people get vaccinated, entire illnesses can go from serious public health threats to occasional isolated incidents. This way the young, the elderly, the sick, and even those who are unsuccessfully vaccinated are protected by the majority. Vaccination rates necessary to establish herd immunity vary by the pathogen, but they can be as high as 95 percent—very little room is left for those who voluntarily choose not to get vaccinated, which is why mandatory vaccinations are widely instituted." If we review the principle of liberty, and consider the populations of people who medically cannot be vaccinated, then herd immunity is a necessary state that we must achieve to maximize the protection of all citizens. NEG Standards 1. My opponent's standards are not real standards. How is freedom a weighing mechanism? How does it act to achieve choice? Not only are the terms basically synonymous, but my opponent has given you zero analysis as to how these operate in the round. 2. Natural Rights clearly outweigh "Choice." Absolute freedom or absolute choice lead to states of nature in which natural rights cannot be protected. In essence, as it states in my case, choice cannot outweigh other people's natural rights. C1: 1. Cross-apply my entire 1. The principle of liberty does not allow a personal decision to outweigh the natural rights of another. I could decide that ritual sacrifice is the right religious choice for me, but it is still illegal to practice it because I'd have to kill someone to do it. C2: 1. This isn't an independent reason to negate the resolution. It's basically a combination of biopower and my opponent's first contention. Hence, cross-apply my 1 again. 2. My opponent mentions competition and survival. First of all, competition is non-resolutional. Second of all, sure humans "survived," but they certainly didn't enjoy the survival rates that they do now. The reason that more people live through pandemics is because of vaccination. 3. "Nothing that directly affects the health of one person should be a decision of another." I absolutely agree. If your decision to not immunize leads you to become a carrier for a disease that has the potential to kill other people that you come into contact with, then you *should not* be able to decide not to immunize. Cross-apply herd immunity and the principle of liberty here. C3: 1. Cross-apply my 1 sub. C and my 2 here. While rare risks are absolutely possible, these risks are minute and immunization in turn saves millions upon millions of lives. I am winning the cost/benefit analysis. Pay specific attention to Pazos: you having soreness and puffy eyes for a few days saves lives. C4: 1. My opponent provides a single example while ignoring far more infectious and dangerous diseases like those listed by Alice Park. 2. Warrants? Cross-apply both Parks & Pazos. Vaccines are necessary to widespread health. C5: 1. How does misinformation about Polio make compulsory immunization unjustified? No link. 2. Counter-example: small pox.