The Instigator
danger93
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points

Should immunization of children be mandated by law?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,107 times Debate No: 29104
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

danger93

Con

Good morning opponent. Our topic today will be: Should immunization of children be mandated by law?. I am the con/against this and my opponent shall be pro/for this. We will have 4 rounds, 72 hours of time to argue. This round is only for agreeing to the rules:

1) You must have a valid resources for your warrants.
2) Please no spamming or cussing.
3) You must have a valid claim.
4) This debate shall not be copied from the politics section of debate.org for resources.
5) Breaking of this debate can make me stop debating with you.

That is all! Good Luck!
16kadams

Pro

1) You must have a valid resources for your warrants.

--> Unless if its philosophical, resources are beneficial. But I won't have a problem here, so alright.

2) Please no spamming or cussing.

--> Agreed

3) You must have a valid claim.

--> If all claims are valid, no one would win. It is better to say "based on evidence". Evidence is valid but different conclusions will be taken from it. So, "founded on evidence" would be a better term.

4) This debate shall not be copied from the politics section of debate.org for resources.

--> okay.

5) Breaking of this debate can make me stop debating with you.

--> okay.

The addendum to three, which still forces is to make rational points, is all I need. It's too subjective the way it's worded, and the change keeps the rules the same (only minus the ambiguity).

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
danger93

Con

Allright, lets begin.

I think vaccinations should not be mandatory. Vaccinations have many side effects which can be harmful. You may not know what the side effects are, they may be death!

According to ncoh.net, Hepatitis A can be self-limiting, gives you life-long immunity, mild symptons occur in vaccines as little as every 1/6 of a people, and severe allergic reactions and death can occur with this vaccination. Lets also look at Hib also from ncoh.net. Fever is common with this vaccination, happens every 1/20 of kids.

Religious reasons is another reason. Lets say that Religion X has a law for their religion that at all times they should not be vaccinated with H1N1. Now, if the US enforces that vaccinations are mandatory, people in religion X will be breaking their religious law. I would not be happy with that. (My religion isn't like that anyways). This is from wikipedia.org. Here is the text from wikipedia "Opposition to vaccination, from a wide array of vaccine critics, has existed since the earliest vaccination campaigns.[25] Although the benefits of preventing suffering and death from serious infectious diseases greatly outweigh the risks of rare adverse effects following immunization,[26] disputes have arisen over the morality, ethics, effectiveness, and safety of vaccination. Some vaccination critics say that vaccines are ineffective against disease[27] or that vaccine safety studies are inadequate.[27] Some religious groups do not allow vaccination,[28] and some political groups oppose mandatory vaccination on the grounds of individual liberty.[25] In response, concern has been raised that spreading unfounded information about the medical risks of vaccines increases rates of life-threatening infections, not only in the children whose parents refused vaccinations, but also in other children, perhaps too young for vaccines, who could contract infections from unvaccinated carriers (see herd immunity).[29] Some parents believe vaccinations cause autism, although the scientific consensus has rejected this idea.[30] In 2011, the doctor who initially claimed a link between autism and vaccines was found to have committed fraud in his studies and stripped of his medical license. [31]" So some religions do say that vaccinations aren't allowed in their religious law.
"Vaccines interfere with natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is a natural occurrence, and humans should not interfere with its trajectory." This was taken from Vaccines.ProCon.org.

I will stop here awaiting for my opponents reply, Good Luck!
16kadams

Pro

My opponent does not provide an argument for the harm, or ineffectiveness of vaccines, rather takes a religious freedom route. However, failure to enforce vaccines actually may lead to the loss of liberty for more individual then it would take away. The term “herd immunity” is defined as: “Herd immunity (or community immunity) describes a form of immunity that occurs when the vaccination of a significant portion of a population (or herd) provides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity.” In other words, a certain amount of children must be vaccinated to prevent the spread of a sickness. The source finds the majority of diseases require 85% of the population to be vaccinated [1]. Sometimes, the number must be 94% [8]. Large portions of doctors have actually refused their patients vaccines, 30% of doctors to be exact, well below the herd immunity for most diseases. It seems odd, in 2006 the number of these physicians doing this was rather low, 6%, however many doctors are being swayed by anti-vaccine propaganda. Interestingly, though, the evidence for vaccines has become more robust [2].



Now, if these surveys are correct, herd immunity levels will not be reached exposing children, and adults alike, to countless amounts of diseases that have the potential to destroy human populations. The graph below (from [2]) demonstrates thousands of people in the US would be killed under my opponents plan. Forcing vaccinations promotes the right to life and the survival of our community; the consequence of religion (in my mind) is not nearly as potent as the right to health.





My Case:



1. Effectiveness



As shown above, there is a correlation between vaccines and reduced disease. Alexandria M. Stewart has documented in the Michigan Law Review that vaccines are the number one life saving tool in modern medicine. Vaccines have “save[ed] more lives than any surgical technique or medication, including antibiotics.” She further goes on to say children that aren’t immunized are at “increased risk of developing vaccine-preventable illnesses, and needlessly expose the larger community to disease.”[3]



The World Health organization (WHO) further advances the best evidence on vaccines. They go as far to say, “vaccination has greatly reduced the burden of infectious diseases. Only clean water, also considered to be a basic human right, performs better.” To say clean water is the only item that saves more lives than vaccines is an astonishing statistic, and really invalidates anti-vaccine proponents. In countries (where vaccination is not required, as if it is required this cannot happen) that have vaccine scares, which are usually false alarms, measles and pertussus actually gains a foothold in the population that did not exist when vaccinations where being administered. Vaccines prevent diseases that often lead to complications. Vaccinations have prevented any cases of cancer, as documented in Taiwan, China, and Africa. Vaccines, preventing illness, save the world 100’s of billions of US dollars. In 2000, vaccines lowered the penicillin-resistant strains by 57%. For children of under two years of age, the amount of antibiotic resistant diseases dropped 81%, and fell 49% for ages 65 and older. In Sweden, influenza vaccines have empties hospital ER rooms immensely. And I am only scathing the surface of the report, almost all data confirms vaccines save lives [4].



The WHO vaccine program is a great proxy to show if vaccines are effective. Before the effort, the amount of vaccines was relatively low because medical care is sparse in poor African regions. A CNN op-ed reports in Tanzania a 79% vaccination rate increased to a 90% and above rate, and GDP growth has skyrocketed. It makes sense: working is more productive than dying of influenza or small pox. The op-ed shows when vaccine programs are implemented, or enforced, the economy tends to boom as the people are more healthy, productive, and the hospitals have more room for other patients. The herd immunity is reached, increasing population growth (which is, on balance, a good thing) and the poor countries begin to make a profit. Vaccines save lives, and in turn make money [5]. To further document the success of increased vaccines, studies have shown after these programs are implemented there is a 74% drop in deaths related to measles in Africa. This furthers the case that vaccines are valuable to society [6].



The American Academy of Pediatrics confirms vaccine effectiveness. They found vaccines are effective up to 90% of the time. The Academy reports, “Most childhood vaccines are 90% to 99% effective in preventing disease.”[7]



My opponent mentions procon.org, I went there. When looking at their “background” information I saw almost every point made in a study promoting the anti-vaccine position was either found flawed or not giving evidence substantial enough to refute the evidence provided by the pro-vaccine camp. The Supreme Court upheld mandatory vaccinations in 1905, and mandatory vaccinations was upheld a second time in 1922. They show only a few organizations take a 100% stand against vaccines, but the background shows many studies refuting the idea that vaccines cause autism or increase disease rates. Something not added in the article was there is no evidence that vaccines cause brain damage. The courts gave 1000 families compensation when there is no real reason to issue the money, when there is no good reason to believe vaccines caused the damage reported by parents [9]. Procon.org further shows the autism-vaccine link false, and most problems associated with vaccines are total baloney. The Wikipedia article my opponent cited (cited without a link, but I found it) have saved more lives then they could possibly have taken away [10].



Conclusion:



The debate, as of now, is pitting a few members of society and a few religious groups versus the greater good of our community. Vaccines have saved millions of lives (the figure above is annual numbers) and the only other lifesaving tool that has saved more lives than vaccines is clean drinking water [4][10]. It is really hard to oppose mandatory vaccines when they save millions of lives, and take away the religious rights of a few. The vast majority of Christians and other religious groups support vaccines. And, in many cases, people have lied about their religious beliefs to avoid vaccination. 30,000 people have bad reactions to vaccines. 33,000 lives each year is saved by vaccines. 13% of the first number can result in death, and less than those actually do. So, the net-benefit of forcing vaccines greatly outweighs the effects of allowing it to be an optional procedure. Vaccines? Yes please.






1. http://en.wikipedia.org...


2. http://online.wsj.com...


3. http://www.michiganlawreview.org...


4. http://www.who.int...;


5. http://www.cnn.com...


6. http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com...;


7. http://www.healthychildren.org...


8. https://docs.google.com...


9. http://www.time.com...


10. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
danger93

Con

Thank you for the reply,

An adult vaccine refusal and a parental vaccine refusal are not the same. Parents do not have absolute right to put their child at a risk even if they themselves are willing to accept such a risk for him or herself.

Minors have a right to be protected against infectious diseases and society has the responsibility to ensure welfare of children who may be harmed by their parents" decisions.

Counseling should form an integral part of any such legislation, as often it is not conviction but laziness of the parents in taking their child to the clinic for immunization or the parents" inability to make an informed decision.

Also the state has already protected children in cases, when their functioning later as an adult could be compromised due to parental actions. For instance: in order to promote culturally prescribed norms, parents may seek to remove their child from school, or have their daughter undergo clitoridectomy; yet the state may claim that such a decision violates the parents' trustee relationship on grounds that the state has a compelling interest in securing the full citizenship capacities and rights of each of its citizens. As trustee, the parent has a limited right to exclusivity in determining the child's life over the course of childhood, but this determination is to be aimed at shaping the child into (for instance) a productive citizen and community member.

The LSU Law center also explains: "The more difficult problem is religious or cultural groups that oppose immunizations. These groups tend to cluster, reducing the effective immunization level in their neighborhoods, schools, and churches. In addition to endangering their own children, such groups pose a substantial risk to the larger community. By providing a reservoir of infection, a cluster of unimmunized persons can defeat the general herd immunity of a community. As these infected persons mix with members of the larger community, they will expose those who are susceptible to contagion."

As seen not to vaccine children can represent a danger for their future, there should be no ultimate power of parents to prevent vaccine jabs.

Here are me sources:

Lahariya C, Mandatory vaccination: is it the future reality ?, Singapore medical journal (editorial) 2008, http://smj.sma.org.sg..., accessed 05/25/2011

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu..., accessed 05/28/2011

Louisiana State University (LSU), Compulsory Immunization, http://biotech.law.lsu.edu..., accessed 05/29/2011
16kadams

Pro

My opponent has plagiarized!

Here:

Go to points against -> the second point ("parents right") -> my opponents argument, word for word, is there.

Link: http://idebate.org...

I could tell because "me sources" after a well articulated post hinted it wa plagiarized. Don't believe me? Read the link. Plagiarism will not be accepted, it is robbing someone else's intellectual property. I extend arguments until my opponent writes his own case.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
danger93

Con

danger93 forfeited this round.
16kadams

Pro

I think that's our answer.
Debate Round No. 4
danger93

Con

danger93 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Also the plagiarism advances my side so...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
danger9316kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: plagiarism from con. Arguments: Forfeit by con.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
danger9316kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits and cheating
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
danger9316kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: In my opinion it's okay to use the arguments of others as long as credit is given. F.F.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
danger9316kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit and copyright infringement.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
danger9316kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: 'dat forfeit