The Instigator
dogofnight
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Mangani
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Resolved: Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunizations

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Mangani
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,287 times Debate No: 10205
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

dogofnight

Pro

I wish good luck to whoever takes this debate. We will be doing LD debate.

According to a TIME magazine article published in May 29, 2008 "CDC officials estimate that fully vaccinating all U.S. children born in a given year from birth to adolescence saves 33,000 lives, prevents 14 million infections and saves $10 billion in medical costs."

Compulsory immunizations give us this immunity that saves many lives.

Therefore, I stand resolved that public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

I offer the following definitions in support of my case from Merriam-Webster Online.
1. Justify- to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable.
2. Compulsory- mandatory or forced.
3. Life- the biological state of existence regarded as necessary for any other human values to be of worth
4. Utilitarianism- the idea, when faced with two actions, an individual ought to choose the action that produces the greatest good for the greatest number
My value is life. My value criterion is utilitarianism. .

My first contention is utilitarianism is the standard for determining the worth of any action.

Utilitarianism involves almost everyone. Everyone choosing for the greatest good for the greatest number is best because more results are produced from the decision. Utilitarianism should be taken into account when deciding to immunize or not because many other people may be hurt in the attempt to respect one.

For example, the government may want to immunize a group of people that they believe have an infectious disease, but the group refuses to take the shots. If the government allows that to happen, then there is a high possibility that the disease will spread and that won't be fair to other people who want to be disease-free.

Utilitarianism is necessary to make a decision when considering life otherwise everyone would die because we didn't consider everyone else.

My second contention is affirming the resolution upholds utilitarianism.

Compulsory immunizations help support utilitarianism.
Subpoint A:
Subpoint A Immunizations eliminate disease.

If immunizations were made mandatory, then they would prevent more diseases from spreading.

According to the New York Times in the article "$630 Million Donated Toward Polio Eradication Efforts" published on January 22nd, 2009 it states "By the measure of disease control, the polio campaign has been an extraordinary success. The number of cases has fallen by more than 99 percent, from more than 350,000 a year 20 years ago, preventing five million cases of paralysis."

By giving out immunizations, the number of cases fell. This proves that immunization is useful and eliminates the disease.

Sub Point B
The vaccines are currently the best option for prevention against many diseases.

Against the few alternatives, the vaccines provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people. They have no real competition for their effectiveness against sickness.

In the article "Hand-washing won't stop H1N1" from Newsweek, dated September 15, 2009 it states, "Your best chance of avoiding H1N1 is to get the vaccine

This once again proves my point that vaccines are the best option for disease control and therefore it is smart to make them compulsory.

My third contention is that upholding Utilitarianism results in life. This means making decisions off of what will make the greatest good for the greatest number of people will result in more life.
Sub Point A
Making immunizations compulsory will make the world safer.

If more people got immunizations, it would keep them and the people around them safe. But if more people didn't get immunizations, it would cause turmoil for them and the people around them.

According to the TIME magazine in the article "How my son spread the measles" it states "Jane says her 10-year-old son starting showing symptoms of the measles — swollen lymph nodes and a fever — about 10 days after returning to the States. He seemed to recover, and she sent him back to school after a few days. In the meantime the boy had again returned to school, carrying the disease into a school with a population of children whose parents choose not to immunize. All told, 12 children between 10 months old and nine years old contracted the measles at the school, the doctor's office and other nearby schools.

This shows how the children who weren't immunized contracted the measles because thir parents refused to take the vaccination.
Subpoint B
Making immunizations compulsory will save lives.

The immunizations do what they are supposed to do. They make you immune from a disease that could have easily killed you.

In an article from the New York Times dated October 27, 2009 it states, "A global initiative that helped immunize children in poorer countries prevented and estimated 3.4 million deaths in less than a decade."

This not only shows, but proves that the vaccine will save lives and making it compulsory will save even more lives.

In conclusion, the immunizations should be compulsory because eliminate disease, they are the best option for prevention against disease, they make the world safer, and they save lives. Most importantly affirming the resolution enhances our value of life. Life is the foundation for all other values. Without life, other values cannot exist. Therefore I stand resolved that public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.
I stand for cross-examination.
Mangani

Con

Thank you for posing this debate. I will first like to make a few clarifications:
Vaccination does not equal immunization. Immunization is a process that takes place within the human body. Vaccination is the process of introducing a live and weakened, or dead virus or bacteria into the human body with the goal of causing immunization. Vaccination does not guarantee immunization, and the lack of vaccination does not guarantee the lack of immunization. Colloquially speaking, the words are interchangeable (also along with inoculation), but for the purposes of debate and argument there must be a difference because even though you can force or mandate vaccination (person injected with virus, bacteria, or sterile proteins), you can only hope for a similarly high rate of immunization (person is immune or resistant to the disease).

Utilitarianism, given the above paragraph, cannot be an accurate or reliable standard for determining the worth of any action because "the greatest good for the greatest number" is subjective. Furthermore, because of the mostly experimental value of many vaccinations, the possible side effects of nearly every vaccination, and the individual characteristics of every disease it is impossible to suggest that compulsory vaccination for all diseases are always justified by public health concerns.

Now for some rebuttals.

"For example, the government may want to immunize a group of people that they believe have an infectious disease, but the group refuses to take the shots. If the government allows that to happen, then there is a high possibility that the disease will spread and that won't be fair to other people who want to be disease-free."

-There are a couple of problems with this argument. First off, it is impossible to be immune yet infected, therefore vaccination of infected individuals is not only unnecessary, but redundant given the fact that if the person lives through the infection it is because the body has fought it off. These people will develop the anti-bodies for this disease, or in some cases die. The entire point of vaccination is to build anti-bodies through introduction of a virus or bacteria foreign to the individual. The individuals susceptible to the spread of the disease are the ones that should be vaccinated, not those already infected.

"Utilitarianism is necessary to make a decision when considering life otherwise everyone would die because we didn't consider everyone else."

-This is a contradictory statement. If one considers their own health, and thus decides to receive a vaccination, utilitarianism is not employed yet the same result is reached therefore it is not "necessary". Furthermore, the vast majority of diseases for which we receive immunizations do not always end in death. With death causing diseases, like AIDS for example, a viable vaccination would not have to be compulsory. Utilitarianism is moot when self-preservation would drive a higher rate of vaccination than compulsion.

My opponent makes the following assertion: "By giving out immunizations, the number of cases fell. This proves that immunization is useful and eliminates the disease."

-This is not true. Though I agree that vaccination and immunization may slow the spread, and even isolate some diseases to the point that credible reports are not available, I do not agree that "immunization...eliminates the disease". I can win this argument with a simple word- Flu, but I will explain. H1N1 is simply one family of flu, and it is present in humans, birds, and swine. Because so many humans are vaccinated each year, rather than eliminating the flu the disease simply mutates. Humans are never truly immune to flu, only resistant to specific strains and usually no longer than a year. Flu vaccination would, therefore, not be a good candidate for compulsory vaccination because it only serves as a precaution. Even the 2009 H1N1 aka Swine Flu should not/ would not make sense to be compulsory. Because it is in the same family as the seasonal flu, many people are already immune. If made compulsory the ends would not justify the means as there is a lower than normal death rate for the Swine Flu when compared to the seasonal flu. 500,000 (some estimates as high as 800,000) people die from the seasonal flu every year. Many of these people were vaccinated the prior year, and many people who receive the vaccination for the seasonal flu end up becoming infected with a different strain. Though vaccination has nearly eradicated and/or isolated "some" diseases, they are almost never completely eliminated.

Regarding polio, it is a highly infectious disease that causes paralysis. You hardly have to employ utilitarianism in convincing anyone to get the vaccination. Most people don't take the vaccination thinking "if I am immune I can't spread the disease" rather "if I am immune I can't GET the disease". You don't have to force a majority to do what they will do willingly.

As for sub-point B, I agree, however, this does not justify compulsory immunization.

As for the third contention, the same argument can be made for no-vaccination, PERIOD. The lack of compulsory vaccination would have a greater effect in enhancing the quality of life, the strength of the immune systems, and the basic survival of the fittest in those who are naturally immune or resistant. More life does not equal the greater good as more life does not guarantee quality of life. Sickly individuals require more vaccinations, more medicine, and more healthcare. No vaccinations, medicine, and health care would ensure a stronger stock of individuals with longer life expectancies, and better qualities of life. Though this is not my basic argument it offers another look at utilitarianism, and helps to prove my point that "the greater good" is subjective.

http://www.cdc.gov...
http://www.cnn.com...
http://www3.niaid.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
dogofnight

Pro

dogofnight forfeited this round.
Mangani

Con

Mangani forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
dogofnight

Pro

dogofnight forfeited this round.
Mangani

Con

Well, it seems my opponent has no argument.

So just a little re-statement of my point:

I am not disagreeing that vaccinations are beneficial to individuals, and with contagious diseases, to society as a whole. I don't disagree that greater numbers of vaccinations with certain diseases result in greater numbers of immunization. What I am disputing is that compulsory immunizations are justified. In a democratic society they are not. Vaccination does not ensure that the spread of a disease will stop in it's entirety, nor does it ensure that every individual will become immune. Vaccines also don't guarantee the lack of side-effects, some worse than the diseases themselves. There are exceptional cases, like polio. However the disease still exists. True, you don't hear about a lot of American polio cases, but you also don't have to force anybody to become vaccinated. Vaccines that offer even the slightest amount of resistance to diseases that plague a society require no compulsion. Common sense will lead individuals to receive the vaccine, and those who opt out cannot effect those who choose to be vaccinated, therefore compulsory vaccinations are unnecessary and not justified.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
Hmmmm? I didn't get an email when 'dogofnight' forfeited R2... I didn't even know it was my turn.
Posted by dogofnight 7 years ago
dogofnight
ill do 1 over thanksgiving so its easier to do
Posted by dogofnight 7 years ago
dogofnight
im new to this so how do i cancel this 1
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
i'll do ld...
Posted by dogofnight 7 years ago
dogofnight
mangani u need to put ur constructive or speech were doing LD debate
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
make the limit 8,000 characters and i'm in.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by BellumQuodPacis 7 years ago
BellumQuodPacis
dogofnightManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by NYCDiesel 7 years ago
NYCDiesel
dogofnightManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
dogofnightManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TxsRngr 7 years ago
TxsRngr
dogofnightManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
dogofnightManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07