State-mandated administration of childhood vaccines is justified.

Topic: State-mandated administartion of childhood vaccines is justified.

Rules:

1. No Ad Hominem

2. No plagiarism

3. No semantics/abusive arguments

4. Dropping = Conceding

5. By accepting, my opponent accepts the given rules.

5a. If not, post in comments. =/


Definitions:

1. State-mandated

Mandated is defined as requirement, so this phrase means each state has requirements relating to medical and safety issues.


2. Administartion

Administration, in this case, relates to allowing the government to give permission and obligating to trained medical professionals to give a shot to you.


3. Childhood Vaccines

A series of vaccines, biological preparation, given during childhood to prevent future diseases.


4. Justified

For debate purposes, it means that on balance, it does more good than harm to the people.


Good luck to whoever accepts.

First round is acceptance.

I accept. I think some of the definitions are curiously worried, but if the "no semantics" rule is followed I am sure we will have no trouble working this out.

By the way, vmpire321, if you are actually 14 years old then I am very impressed by your debate record. Otherwise, stop pretending to be 14 on the internet, that's just creepy.

Introduction:

The utilitarian framework of this debate (as implied by the definition of "justified" in R1) means that the resolution is primarily an empirical question: does state-mandated vaccination improve human welfare? The next logical question is always, "As compared to what?" The alternative to a state controlled system is a private market in vaccines. My thesis is that the benefits that Pro proposes are still present when the state does not control the vaccine market, and that there are significant disadvantages associated with the switch.

Analysis of the Resolution:

The resolution is not clear on the details of how mandatory vaccination will be carried out. For instance, is the state or the consumer paying for it? I'll try to abstract away from these and other questions that the resolution leaves open.

Rebuttals:

CA1: Solvency

I agree that vaccines help prevent diseases and that they are not dangerous. This is uncontroversial. However, it is an argument for vaccination in general, not an argument for mandatory vaccination. Without mandatory vaccination, large numbers of people will still voluntarily choose to vaccinate themselves. If anything, the demand for vaccinations against diseases like the flu is so high that it often cannot be met (though this may be due to under pricing)[1][2]. A huge majority of parents choose to vaccinate their children even when it is optional: 98% of parents who think vaccines are safe and even 86% of those who do not give their children full vaccination [3]. Getting the government out of vaccination will reduce these people's irrational worries, and focusing on education will improve vaccination rates better than simply resorting to force.

CA2: Community

Cross-apply the argument above that this point supports vaccination generally, not mandatory vaccination. This advantage is obtained just as well by voluntary means because so many people voluntarily vaccinate.

I also turn this argument against Pro. Herd immunity is a more complex concept than simply "if we immunize everybody nobody will get sick." Depending on the cost of vaccination, how individual people weigh risk, the damage of disease, etc. there is an optimal percentage of the population that needs to be vaccinated. It is not 100%: having just one un-vaccinated person will clearly not have a negative effect because there will be no one to catch the disease from. [4]

People choose to vaccinate themselves according to their perceived risk, the costs of the vaccination and the disease, their personal feelings, the behavior of others in the community (the more others vaccinate themselves the less you need to, and vice versa). They also alter their behavior depending on the prevalence of disease (the H1N1 outbreak prompted mass voluntary vaccination)[5]. A market for vaccines will allocate them to people according to the impact of the vaccines on each person. Mandatory vaccination just crudely allocates vaccines to everyone, resulting in inefficient overproduction. People are forced to spend money on vaccines when something like food, rent, or their electric bill might be a higher priority.

It's true that there is human error involved: many people in the United States foolishly choose not the vaccinate. This is a public relations failure. Imposing vaccines by force on people who fear them will only lead to more resentment and distrust. A better long-term strategy is to make vaccination optional and teach people to voluntarily adopt it.

CA3: Money

Cross-apply the CA1 argument again: this money is saved through vaccination whether it is mandatory or not. The large majority of people will vaccinate anyway so almost all this benefit is lost by Pro.

Giving the disadvantaged access to vaccines does not require mandatory vaccination. The government and/or charities can provide money to the poor, women, and other people who might not be able to afford vaccines. The aid would simply be optional. This advantage is lost entirely.

Turn this point on Pro: Mandatory vaccination creates unnecessary costs. Cf. CA2: it results in over-production of vaccines. There are also administration, enforcement, and judicial costs, which as with any government program are notoriously high. If mandatory vaccinations (very optimistically) account for 10% of savings due to vaccination (based on the CA1 data), that's about $2 billion dollars per year. In order to stay in the black Pro's program would have to cost about $5 per person-year in the US, which clearly seems impossibly low (assuming about 350 million people live in the US). It is very likely that we would lose money on such a program simply due to the costs of checking that everyone is indeed vaccinated. As Pro says, unless we successfully vaccinate everyone, there's no advantage over the voluntary system that only gets nearly everyone.

CA4: Authority

This is all irrelevant because justice is defined as what "does more good than harm to the people." Whether the state has the authority is unrelated, and Pro's argument is silly anyway because she just says that the state has the authority because they say they do.

Affirmative Arguments:

I don't have as much space for these as I would like because I have a full 8k of Pro's arguments to respond to, so I may expand somewhat in the next round.

C1: Economic Calculation

Should we build more bicycles or more iPods? This is an overwhelmingly complex question that concerns more variables than we could ever consciously account for. A government could never rationally decide the answer. The price system on the free market is able to solve this problem because the price of goods and the profit rate from their industries is determined indirectly by the supply and demand not just of the good itself, but by every other good. The price of a bicycle is determined by the price of building materials, factory machines, labor, alternate forms of transportation and exercise, and unrelated but more urgently needed goods. The same is true of the price of vaccines. Mandating that everyone be vaccinated would have the same effect as mandating everyone own a bike: too many vaccines will be produced, and worse other things that would have been produced won't be. Pro's policy must bear the hidden, unknown cost of diverting law enforcement, medical production and labor, and government administration away from other uses that the open market would deem more valuable. It's simply impossible for Pro to take as much information into account as is required to justify this trade-off; she focuses only on what is seen and ignores the unseen. See: [6][7]

C2: Biopolitics

The "liberal" (broadly speaking) view of government that arose out of the Enlightenment views the relationship between the state and the citizen as political: there is a legal relationship based on mutually acknowledged rights, responsibilities, and privileges. The power of the state is not directly foisted upon the citizen's bare biological life. By contrast, under totalitarianism the relationship between the state and the citizen is biological: the citizen's body is an instrument of the state which can be used directly without political interface. The foisting of the state's power on the citizen's bare life has a profound impact on the community's philosophy. If this practice is accepted, we move into a world where anything goes. This change in the fundamental nature of political life, from a relationship between the citizen's mind and the state to a relationship between the citizen's body and the state, has had horrific consequences in history [8][9]. Even the slightest transgression of this type cannot be risked at all and should fill any reasonable person with grave dread.

Conclusion:

The advantages of mandatory vaccination are not much greater than those of voluntary vaccination. Mandatory vaccination involves unnecessary costs, is inefficient, and sets a terrible philosophical precedent that has lead to brutal expansion of state power.

SOURCES IN COMMENTS

Introduction:

I'm fine with my opponent attempting to argue that the private market protects people better than a government controlled market in vaccines.


Analysis of the Resolution:


Generally, public forum debates do not require plans. The resolution also doesn't seem to imply any sort of call to action.


Defending the Affirmative Contentions


C1: Solvency

My opponent conceded that vaccines improve people's lives, and that without vaccines lives will be lost.
This is critical, because the government's responsibility is to maximize and improve public health and safety.

There is a great, compelling state reason to require immunization, because of the countless lives that have been saved through it. Risking lives through a lost of mandate will be the last thing that the government will want to do - because it will cost lives.

My opponent has been attempting to assert that people can handle themselves - and the only interference needed is education by the government.
This is failing. The Wall Street Journal reported on how doctors are practically giving up on their patients and dismissing them, because of their stubborn belief that vaccines can hurt their children [1] [3].

False claims that have been disproved by numerous studies, such as the claim that their is a link between autism and vaccines, continue to trick parents even today, even as doctors try to explain to the parents [1].
In fact, around 39% of parents refused/delayed vaccines for their children back in '08, up from previous years [2].

In a study published last year, some 30% of doctors claim that, at least once, they asked a family to leave because of their constant refusal of vaccines [1]. Another source provided a similar but lesser number - 21% of doctors have dismissed families because of vaccination issues [3].

Attempting to "focus on education" has been tried by doctors - and failure is evident.

Making the government leave vaccine mandates will reduce people's irrational worries, to some extent. Obviously, parents will become scared with the return of horrible diseases. Due to the fact that vaccinations now prevent diseases, many people have begun to forget the horrible impacts of some diseases [3].



Do you see why some parents no longer remember?


C2: Community


My opponent doesn't gain the same benefits, because without mandates - the number of vaccinations will quickly reduce. Voluntary vaccinations are not likely to stay at high rates, but mandates keeps them high enough.

The fact remains that there simply isn't only going to be that one crazy parent who doesn't vaccinate their children. A rising amount of people are choosing to exempt themselves or delay vaccinations [4] [5]. With this growing trend, we can expect the loss of herd immunity - which is usually around 90-95%.

My opponent also claims that at different times, different vaccinations are needed. This is outrageous - a constant vaccination of children is vital to ensure the safety of the people from the disease returning. With people believing these false hopes, vaccination rates will start to lower, with people believing that the vaccine is no longer needed, and the disease will return. My example of how whooping cough worsened in Colorado because of lowering vaccination rates perfectly captures this scenario.



More and more parents choosing to exempt or delay will harm the general public.


C3: Money


For the maximization of gained money, mandates are needed. Without them, we cannot hope to save a similar amount, when considering the high exemptions.

My opponent also claims that aid has to be given to the poor, in order to pay for the vaccines. I doubt that there is actually that many people who need aid, to actually amount to anything. My opponent's own evidence seems to imply large amounts of "voluntary vaccinations", whereas the overwhelming majority of people pay for themselves.

Also, vaccine mandates generally aren't that hard to enforce. Currently, the main punishment for rejecting vaccination is that you cannot go to public schools (private schools also have similar vaccine requirements to enter), unless if you state allows some sort of religious/moral/philosophical exemptions (and most states do allow some exemptions).

Also, Con's calculations are rather confusing. To be honest, I don't see how he got the $2 billion dollar savings figure and how the government needs to spend $5 on every person.


C4: Authority


I was expecting my opponent to throw a constitutionality/parental freedoms argument out there, but I guess I was wrong. Also, the constitution is generally seen as the document keeping power and freedoms in balance, both by the people and the government. I don't see any other way to find whether or not the government has the authority other than the legal process.


Con Arguments



C1: Economic Calculation

Generally mutation rates in bacteria are about one mutation per one hundred million genes per generation. Bacteria can produce billions of new bacteria daily, each with possibly thousands of genes. Within some forms of diseases, you can expect quick mutations and a rapidly worsening and harming sickness. Constant awareness is needed to fight this - a worthy use of the government's time and money considering the rising number of parents failing to protect their children. Quite frankly, you can't take a risk by letting parents have their own freedoms about this.

Also, my opponent has conceded that vaccines have beneficial individual effects. Creating more vaccinations and enforcing mandates will lead to the general improvement of life.

C2: Biopolitics

This might be relevant if we were talking about vaccine mandates in general - concerning adults too. However, children simply do not have the same exact rights as adults.

Also, my contention about "authority" is supposed to relate to this. The Constitution is the method by which the people and the government decide whether or not a new law is infringing too much on individual freedoms.

There currently exists no alternative to mandates - "educating" parents on the safety and benefits of vaccines is ineffective in increasing numbers. As the government's duty is partially to protect public health and safety, they must take action to protect the lives of individuals. Without life, you cannot enjoy freedoms.

Furthermore, I don't see any logical reason why a parent would have to refuse vaccines other than religious/moral/philosophical objections, which states usually give exemptions to. My opponent has agreed that vaccines have almost no risk at all, and provide much more advantages to people.
This sort of bad parenting needs to be stopped.

Individual rights cannot be respected if they harm the general public. People are free to do what they will until their actions begin harming others [6].


Conclusion:

Voluntary vaccination cannot accomplish as much as mandatory vaccinations. Voluntary vaccination leads to higher exemptions, delays, and ultimately will result in a tremendous loss of life. Not to mention that voluntary vaccination leads to the loss of benefits such as herd immunity and won't save as much money for society and the government. Compulsory vaccination protects these benefits and people.

I await your response, Con ;)




Sources:

[1] http://online.wsj.com...
[2] http://abcnews.go.com...
[3] http://www.usatoday.com...
[4] http://www.kdheks.gov...
[5]http://www.usatoday.com...
[6] Paul Offit, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases and the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

Introduction:

I am impressed by Pro's reply. I have more time to work on my argument now, so hopefully this argument will be better than the last.

Analysis of the Resolution:

Pro didn't say that this was a public forum debate. I'm only pointing out that the debate shouldn't hinge on things that the resolution is vague about.

Rebuttals:

CA1: Solvency

Vaccination improves quality of life. It doesn't follow that it should be mandatory. Yacht ownership improves quality of life, but mandating it would be a harmful misallocation of resources.

Pro's case is founded on unwarranted fears. In the United States today, there are only two states in which vaccine exemption is not allowed for any reason other than medical necessity: West Virginia and Mississippi [1]. I also stated that even among parents who believe vaccines are risky, 86% still fully vaccinate their children [2]. The percentage of people who believe that vaccines are dangerous appears to be small [3], and the majority of people, who believe vaccines are safe, use them at an even higher rate (98%) [2]. There is no immediate danger of falling below Pro's 90-95% herd immunity threshold.

The crux of this argument is the following: if herd immunity is achieved without mandates then Pro cannot claim it as an advantage.

I will further repeat my argument that government involvement in vaccination is the cause of irrational fears of vaccines in the first place. See: crazy Alex Jones type conspiracy theorists. Providing vaccines through sources that people trust instead of through a legitimately frightening bureaucratic mechanism of total state power would alleviate much of these worries. By trying to force their beliefs on everyone else, the scientific community is creating resistance to an idea that people could otherwise be reasonably persuaded to accept.

Turn Pro's graph: we don't have vaccine mandates today, but numerous diseases have been eradicated or significantly reduced.

CA2: Community

This whole argument is predicated on the assumption that herd immunity will be lost without mandatory vaccination. We have herd immunity and no mandatory vaccination, so that can't be true.

In spite of what Pro (and seemingly every other person who I've debated this with) thinks, I fully understand the concept of herd immunity. My argument is that herd immunity is achieved through voluntary vaccination.

Pro claims that the number of parents choosing to exempt their children is rising so rapidly that herd immunity will be lost in the future. She has no evidence for that prediction. At the current moment, herd immunity is secure, and the backlash from the scientific community against the anti-vaccination movement has been significant. It is just as likely that vaccine resistance will once again decline.

I want to reply to a specific comment from Pro: “My opponent also claims that at different times, different vaccinations are needed. This is outrageous - a constant vaccination of children is vital to ensure the safety of the people from the disease returning.”

I don't see how my claim is disputable. In areas where disease X is more common, more vaccination against it is necessary than in areas where it is less common. When swine flu broke out, it was necessary to vaccinate against it. Now it is mostly gone, and there is no more need to vaccinate against it.

Pro's argument seems to lead to the conclusion that we need to be fully vaccinated against every disease, all the time. But it should be obvious to everyone why vaccinating everyone against hundreds of strains of the common cold all the time would be an uneconomic waste of resources that could help people in other ways. Once this fact is conceded, we can see how it extends to every disease: total immunization isn't necessary. Voluntary choice has so far proven more than sufficient to meet the minimum threshold.

CA3: Money

I have found Pro's reply here difficult to understand.

On the issue of people who cannot afford vaccines: I argued that it is non-topical. They can be provided with money to purchase vaccines without being required to do so.

My calculations were simple arithmetic. Pro said that vaccines will save $231 billion over the next ten years. Assume this could be increased 10% through a mandate (very generous because more than 90% of children are fully vaccinated). That's $23.1 billion, which we divide by ten to get the annual savings: $2.31 billion. Now divide by the number of people in the US (about 350 million) to get the savings per person: it comes out to $6.60, which I rounded to $5.

It is reasonable to assume that it would cost more money than this to implement a vaccine mandate. It will require an increase in administrative and law enforcement costs, which are already notoriously high. In 2011, there were 75 million children in the US[4]. That means that Pro has only about $30 to spend per child, which is considerably less than the cost of a single vaccine.

In order to have the possibility of saving money, Pro's program would have to vaccinate more children than there are unvaccinated children.

You will not save money by mandating vaccines for the same reason you will not save money by mandating teeth brushing: the savings of the mandate are so small compared to ordinary behavior that they will be outweighed by the cost of enforcing it.

CA4: Authority

I am going consider this argument conceded by Pro and not address it again.

Affirmative Arguments:

C1: Economic Calculation

I am calling this argument dropped. Pro's reply was a complete non sequitur.

The economic calculation argument says that you can never know whether an intervention in the free market is beneficial or not because the interactions between market variables are too complex. Any attempt at economic policy is just groping in the dark.

Pro's reply had nothing to do with this. Just putting the same heading in and writing unrelated words isn't a response. It's not up to me to waste space repeating myself.

Pro's own rule says that a drop is a concession. She must admit that she has no idea whether a vaccine mandate is really a better use of those resources than what the market would otherwise do. Replying with a non sequitur is a borderline abusive argument because I have to waste limited space explaining it.

C2: Biopolitics

This is a consequentialist argument based on Pro's criterion of justice: it says that by eroding certain barriers to political power, we risk grave expansions in government power. The difference between a free society and a totalitarian society is the existence on legal barriers to the state's use of force against the citizen's person. When we remove this restrictions, we create an environment that is legally and philosophical partial to totalitarianism.

Pro's contention on authority does not address this. All it says is that it would be legal for the state to do this. I am talking about the consequences of actually doing it. Pro's argument just begs the question anyway: if I don't think the state has the authority to make these decisions, the fact that the state says it does isn't going to persuade me.

The fact that the resolution applies to children does it help. It means that the state replaces the parent as the arbiter of the child's biological life. This is just as disastrous. If the state is responsible for stopping “bad parenting” as Pro says, then children are really wards of the state who their parents are allowed to care for at the state's whim.

Conclusion:

Pro's argument seems to assume that we have mandatory vaccination now (and this is commonly assumed). Far from it. Non-medical excuses are allowed in 48 states. Anyone who does not want their child vaccinated can cook up a religious or philosophical reason why. Thus, people who are against vaccination do in fact vaccinate their children at lower rates. But in spite of this, public vaccination has been remarkably successful.

Sources:

Will post all sources for the debate next round. Out of time and space. I can post them early if needed.

My opponent unfortunately forfeited this last round. This was shaping up to be a good debate, so I'm disappointed that it ended this way.

Per the rules, all dropped arguments count as concessions. That means that Pro has conceded everything and the debate goes to me by default.

One benefit of this is that at least I don't have to track down all my sources :P