| Welcome to Fusion. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you are registering with a Yahoo e-mail address, or if you are having trouble receiving your validation e-mail, please refer to this topic for assistance. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Public Health Concerns Justify Cumpulsory Immunization | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 16 2009, 03:22 PM (1,993 Views) | |
| Askio | Oct 16 2009, 03:22 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Beginning and End
![]()
|
A rather modern, and highly debated topic. My personal belief is that for certain diseases, such as smallpox, mumps, etc., that are proven to be prevented from vaccines, are a good thing. I respect religious beliefs, but to not use modern medicine, and threatening the lives of your family and others does not justify selfish action. What I like about this topic is the wording. Immunization being present, defined as triggering a response in the human immune system, combined with the fact that there is no established actor in the topic itself, means that Nazism and the whole socialist actor ideas that people would use against one side are basically useless. That makes my life a whole lot easier on the Affirmative side. What do you all think of this topic? |
| |
![]() |
|
| Reaver | Oct 16 2009, 11:27 PM Post #2 |
|
Troll
![]()
|
The negative called, they wanted to argue for individual liberties. There are arguments against vaccinations, including that they are sometimes ineffective (see: flu vaccines), it will cost people money for things they ultimately do not value, and ultimately the people who receive immunizations will not be affected by the people who reject the treatment. The benefits of the affirmative are available to those who want it if we chose to negate the resolution, but the benefits of the negative are unavailable should we affirm. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Askio | Oct 18 2009, 10:40 AM Post #3 |
![]()
Beginning and End
![]()
|
To cost I would say: One that the government or insurance companies often foot most of the bills to begin with, so the common people overall aren't harmed financially. two: who wouldn't value the number reported cases of smallpox in 1976 reported at 896,000 coming down to 89 reported cases in 2006? We've basically stomped out numerous diseases in at least partially developed countries that originally killed hundreds or thousands of people. That's worth some cost if it can be proven a cost would exist. Third: people that are allergic are exceptions. Mandatory can mean for a certain group that its safe for. And this topic doesn't have to apply to a country, state, etc. It could be a business telling a group of employees they have to get vaccines before traveling. In this case, most people, if not all of them, are protected. But what you said about the negative...is that simply stating that, the negative, through people being properly informed about a virus and voluntarily getting an available immunization, allows the same benefits for the majority of the population, while not violating certain rights, while the AFF will force people, achieving the same beneficial end of protection, while hurting the people by violating said rights? In that case Reaver, I pose a question. Do you think drunk driving is bad, and deserves the severity of punishment it generally gets? |
| |
![]() |
|
| Oujay | Oct 18 2009, 08:52 PM Post #4 |
![]()
No School Drug Zone
![]()
|
Oh shit there are debate kids on FEFF? Sweet Another point for the neg would be the link between immunization and Autism (if you were feeling ballsy) or the link between immunization and the rare allergic reaction that can maim or kill (not quite as ballsy, but more stable an argument) Under a system where immunization is voluntary, the immunized takes an understood risk when they receive immunization, knowing that in rare cases allergic reactions can occur that may be deadly. Under a mandated immunization policy, however, it can be argued that instead of voluntarily taking a risk in order to make oneself safer, the government or acting power is simply playing Russian Roulette with its citizenry, because in groups as large as a nation, the chances that at least one person will die from the vaccine is very, very high. This taking away right to life, liberty, etc, liberty being the more important thing to focus on so that the aff couldn't say that more lives would be saved than lost, blah blah blah (e.g. What do you value more: freedom of the people or a few lives [and then get their asses with the rationale for every American war ever]) Though you don't state an actual agent of immunization, every sort of immunization carries an inherent risk of allergic reaction. Edited by Oujay, Oct 18 2009, 08:53 PM.
|
| *pops out of nowhere and makes a post, then leaves again* | |
![]() |
|
| Reaver | Oct 18 2009, 10:15 PM Post #5 |
|
Troll
![]()
|
...except for the fact that the government and insurance companies are funded by the people. The consequences of either of these organizations footing the bill means that taxes will rise, government programs will be cut (which means people will need to pay more for things they used to get for free/cheap), or insurance premiums will go up (which leaves people without access to other important health benefits). Neither of those options are exclusive, either. The people will be financially harmed in some way, shape, or form. Sure, some immunizations are extremely effective. They require one or two shots and always work: guaranteed. However, those vaccines are relatively inexpensive for the supplier because of a lack of general demand (since you only need them once or twice) and because you only need to buy it once. MMR for example, which prevents Mumps, Measles, and Rubella, costs $18.30 per dose in the contract sector and $48.31 in the private sector (Source). However, the debate becomes tricky when you factor in immunizations which are more expensive and shots which need to be renewed daily. Take influenza for example. The flu isn't a virus you can vaccinate against like Measles; as a matter of fact, they determine what the flu vaccine will contain by looking at last year's strain and then predicting which stains will be predominant in the next year. However, this method can be very unreliable and many contest the efficacy of such shots. Because the virus can mutate, sometimes the vaccine isn't as effective as it could be. When you consider that the immunization would be ineffective and relatively expensive, it's a waste of money when it won't work reliably. People can still get immunizations for the negative, but people can't reject immunizations on the affirmative, so yes. That and there are other ways to avoid catching the flu, such as washing your hands thoroughly and practicing better hygiene (coughing into one's arm, e.g.). The analogy you want to draw is flawed. For one, one doesn't choose to get a virus but one does choose to get drunk (and then chooses to drive). Without the matter of probability, the decision becomes rather obvious that we should prevent people from consciously contracting flu. For another, because of the randomness of flu, we need to take into account the varied health of people. All drunk drivers lack the same coordination, physical ability, and attention necessary to drive [and many sober drivers lack these traits], but people are not all endangered by the flu. Many healthy individuals, should they contract flu, will not be affected severely, whereas all drunk drivers will be impaired on the road. Therefore, it is not a valid analogy because no uniform solution exists. I will, however, comment that your analogy is sufficient in respect to prevention: strict laws do not prevent drunk driving (as it still occurs), just as getting a vaccination may not prevent the flu. One article suggests: Despite its poor track record in predicting which influenza viruses will infect communities, the CDC admitted Feb. 26, 1999, in its nationally broadcast program, "Preparing for the Next Influenza Pandemic," that influenza vaccine is "approximately 70 percent" effective in preventing influenza in "healthy persons less than 65 years of age" if "there is a good match between vaccine and circulating viruses." Depending on the study cited vaccine efficacy actually ranges from a low of 0 percent to a high of 96 percent. And, as illustrated above, the CDC often finds it difficult to match vaccines with circulating viruses. (Source) As you can see, it's not 100% effective. Paying that much that frequently for something that doesn't work that well is a disaster. Edited by Reaver, Oct 18 2009, 10:17 PM.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Askio | Oct 19 2009, 09:48 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Beginning and End
![]()
|
I was more pointing the analogy to the idea of individual decision leading to greater harm. Individuals have the right to fully fulfill their individual rights, unless it puts another rights. Such as I have the right to drink, but cannot drive while intoxicated because it threatens my well being and that of other people, which is why it is illegal. Why should people hesitate to get immunized, or catch an uncontrolled strain of disease and threaten other people due to that. Besides, in the US as an example, mandatory immunizations are totally legal and constitutional. The Commerce Laws, upheld any time challenged by the Supreme Court, and the requirements for school, travel, work, etc, uphold this as well. While it can be argued the compulsory means mandatory, it doesn't state that every individual is receiving them on a whole scale. Simply in the picked scale of the aff or neg world. That being said, I think its fair to say, that any intelligent government would not, and if actually addressing a public health concern, would not give it to people with possible allergies. But then again, it could be argued also the chance of allergies or less likely with a "controlled" injection from the doctor, rather than possibly getting a disease or infection through normal, uncontrolled and random means to the point you may not know you have it until it is too late. Also the link between autism is still not sufficiently proven to be used properly. And the allergic reaction is addressed in the above. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Reaver | Oct 20 2009, 01:50 PM Post #7 |
|
Troll
![]()
|
This logic is wrong for a couple of reasons: for one, if a strain of a disease is uncontrollable, immunization is useless simply by definition of the disease being "uncontrollable". Certain viruses exist even if you have immunities. Chicken Pox, as an example, won't affect anyone who previously had the disease. The virus hasn't disappeared because people have become immune/been immunized; it simply means that the immunized cannot catch the disease. The consequences of this suggest that if an individual wishes to avoid vaccination, it will not harm the health of someone who has chosen to be immunized. I'm not going to counter the allergies point because that's like saying the draft means every male citizen has to go to war. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Soja | Oct 21 2009, 06:40 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Gentle Water, Crashing Waves
![]()
|
I personally think that if it's for a highly contagious and likely fatal disease, and in an emergency, such that a person presents a hazard to public health if he or she ventures out while infected, then the onus is on the government to mandate immunization. One could argue that it wouldn't matter if the rest of the public were immunized, but immunizations are not guarantees last I heard. The strain can mutate, and so forth. Of course, I can't think of a way that one would be able to tell if a person has been immunized or not, so enforcement may be impossible anyway without further transgressions of an individual's right to move about in public space. |
![]() Fusion Universe - FEF Fanfic Slayers Forth - Slayers Fanfic Smartest Member '06 & '07 & '08 & 'o9 & 10, Favored Debater '07 & '08 & '09 & 10, Most Popular '08, Manliest '08 & '09, Author of Nightmares, Scourge of the Luxon, Rules Lawyer, Nick's Former Hero, Crysta's Lover How to Get Banned From FEFF 1. Break a rule enough that a moderator has to verbally warn you. 2. Break a rule enough that a moderator has to actually warn you. 3. Repeat steps 1 and 2. 4. Repeat steps 1 and 2 again, getting suspended for a few days. 5. Repeat steps 1 and 2 yet again, getting suspended for a week and Underdogged. 6. Repeat steps 1 and 2. 7. Do all this in the course of a month. 8. ???? 9. PROFIT!!! Congratulations! You've been banned from FEFF! | |
![]() |
|
| Oujay | Nov 9 2009, 04:45 PM Post #9 |
![]()
No School Drug Zone
![]()
|
I don't know how many of you guys are in formal debate, but this is the Lincoln Douglas debate topic for this bi-month period, and I'm making my affirmative case for it now (yeah yeah, make jokes about the stoner in debate. I'll kick your asses at it XD). It's quite a fun one, because the affirmative can be very numbers-oriented (statistics on who dies from immunizations vs. chance of death by disease) and the negative can get all philosophical about liberty and such. You guys should note in your informal debate here, and in a formal debate for you guys on a debate team, that the resolution doesn't actually say compulsory immunization by WHOM. I made an observation in my affirmative case limiting the Resolution to only compulsory immunization of citizens by their government, but you could really go crazy if your opponent doesn't limit the resolution. Just throwing that out there. I don't THINK this is a necropost 'cause this is the most recent topic in this section. Whatever. |
| *pops out of nowhere and makes a post, then leaves again* | |
![]() |
|
| Askio | Nov 11 2009, 04:16 PM Post #10 |
![]()
Beginning and End
![]()
|
yeah, but who else has the authority to immunize people through compulsory immunization other than a government, has been the main argument I've heard. I like my aff case, particularly since it's simple, but forces the neg to attack a certain way basically. And nah, this is still going, but blue key kinda annoys me. I should have broken further than I did. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Inui | Dec 2 2009, 05:34 PM Post #11 |
|
Power of Flower
![]()
|
I don't think people should be allowed to become a danger to others. That sums up my opinion pretty well. And now I am the last poster in the entire Other Discussion category, mwahaha! Edited by Inui, Dec 2 2009, 05:35 PM.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
3:35 AM Jul 11
|












3:35 AM Jul 11