Thinking about Compulsory Immunization

Resolved:Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

At first glance, I thought this would be a very difficult topic for the negative side, but the more I’ve thought about it the more I think the negative has solid ground. In most developed countries, immunization of children is already mandatory, and in the United States children are not permitted to attend school with proof of immunization. Though there is a vocal but tiny minority of people who have argued that compulsory immunization of children is responsible for the increased incidences of autism, medical science has debunked their claims. Negative will have a hard time arguing against compulsory immunization on the grounds that vaccines are unsafe. This is particularly true given that if a vaccine were truly unsafe, then they would themselves be a public health concern. The affirmative should reasonably be able to posit that compulsory immunization are only justified in cases where the vaccines used are known to be relatively safe and that vaccination would in truth reduce public health concerns, not increase them.

There will, I’m sure, be evidence mills that will try to sell debaters evidence suggesting that immunization does more harm than good, but reasonably judges should allow the affirmative to argue that the debate should focus on cases where immunization would provide a real benefit to public health. Examples of governments forcing unsafe vaccines on people should be viewed as having nothing to do with this topic.

Given this, the negative’s best strategy will likely be an argument by analogy: since people aren’t required to accept medical treatment when they are sick, why should they be compelled to accept it when they are still healthy? Leaving aside the case of children, where the state has long been recognized as having a right to intervene in cases where parents’ religious or philosophical beliefs lead them to deny the benefits of modern medicine, adults are widely viewed as being able to decide for themselves whether to accept medical treatment. This is true even in cases where the adult may be suffering from a contagious illness.

While it’s a crime to knowingly try to infect an unsuspecting person with HIV, it isn’t a crime for someone to refuse treatment for HIV or to continue having sexual relations with partners aware of the risks involved. While there probably are some instances of involuntary quarantine that still take place, in general the right of people to decline medical treatment has in general not been limited by concerns for public health This works to the negative’s favor.

Another factor working in the negative’s favor is that people have a very good incentive to voluntarily accept immunization: they can avoid getting sick. Fear of the swine flu has resulted in shortages of H1N1 flu vaccine and vaccination against the swine flu remains voluntary. While on balance it would likely be better if everyone were to get a flu shot, the risk people who refuse to get flu shots pose to public health, while real, is minimal. The greatest risk these people take it to their own well being. One could imagine, I suppose, a case where universal immunization could eradicate an illness, as has happened with smallpox, but I suspect that even with compulsory immunization 100% compliance would be hard to achieve. If fear of getting sick isn’t enough to motivate people to get immunized, it’s hard to imagine that fear of the state is going to make much of a difference.

The negative has to be careful, of course, and accept that the burden the resolution presents: the negative should accept that compulsory immunization probably would, all else being equal, protect public health better than voluntary immunization. However, the negative can and should point out that risk to public health is likely not that great given the natural incentive people have to voluntarily accept medical treatment. The greater the risk to public health involved in people not getting immunized, the greater the incentive people have to volunteer for it. The negative’s point strongest argument, though, is that ultimately the decision should remain with the individual.