Second in a series of previews of the potential LD resolutions for 2009-2010.
It's nice to see science getting some play in the world of LD, which is why I hope the immunization resolution gets selected for next season.
Resolved:
Public
health
concerns
justify
compulsory
immunization
.
Scientists and public health officials get frustrated, even angry, by vaccine dissenters, a small, but increasingly vocal minority. After all, the argument runs, vaccinations have undoubtedly saved millions of lives since their inception. The risks are minimal; the benefits massive. Besides, without compulsion--without the greatest possible protection of the population--those benefits aren't seen.
So, from an LD perspective, how might we approach the resolution?
Affirmatives will probably use broad-based utilitarian reasoning. If, on balance, compulsory vaccination saves more lives than it puts at risk, then the decision, societally speaking, is a no-brainer. Assemble a few statistics and expert quotes, value "life" and set your criterion to utility, and let logic do the work.
Negatives could respond by attacking the stats, or taking a more philosophical approach, citing the John Stuart Mill adage that "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." This is the classic argument against inoculation; go back to the 1907
anti-immunization book Vaccination by John Pitcairn to see an example.
The rejoinder to this sort of argument is to quote Mill against Mill, as the Washington State Board of Health does in
this vaccination briefing [pdf].
John Stuart Mill in On Liberty wrote that “The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” This thesis has become known as the harm principle. The Immunization Advisory Committee endorsed the harm principle and interpreted it to mean that vaccine mandates are justifiable when without them:
• An individual’s decision could place others health in jeopardy
• The state’s economic interests could be threatened by the costs of care for vaccine preventable illness, related disability or death and for the cost of managing vaccine preventable disease outbreaks
• The state’s duty of educating children could be compromised
The crucial thing about communicable disease is that it requires no agency on the part of its victims. Innocents are vectors, too.
Since the recipients of vaccinations are most often children, the persons being harmed--or at least risking harm--aren't legally able to accept or refuse inoculation on their own. As the briefing shows, this adds an "it takes a village to raise a (healthy) child" dimension to the debate.
Returning to Pitcairn, at the close of his book, a diatribe against "man-made science" interfering with "God's handiwork" points to another classic argument: that vaccination tampers in God's domain. Updating this logic for the evolutionary era, some anti-vaccinationists will argue that inoculations destroy natural immunities or upset nature's balance. (Want to really go crazy here? Open to a page from the policy playbook, and argue that vaccination is responsible for overpopulation and its concomitant harms. Just don't be surprised if your judge finds you scary.)
Lastly, the Board's briefing cited above refers to allowable exemptions for religious reasons, another argument both sides must prepare for.
For a backgrounder,
Wikipedia's page on anti-vaccination arguments is a great place to start. I also like Douglas Diekema's
accessible intro to the ethical debate [pdf].
Added: An example of the practical effects
of the contemporary debate on vaccination.