Public policy

The GOP debate over vaccination raises important issues which that forum can’t adequately address. So let’s try to explore the issues.

1) Logical extremes

Libertarians are very sensitive to slippery slope arguments. So a libertarian might say the following: if you support mandatory vaccination, then you can’t oppose mandatory healthcare. Where do you draw the line?

That seems plausible. But we need to draw a basic distinction. It’s a virtue to take an argument to a logical extreme. But it’s not necessarily a virtue to take a policy to a logical extreme.

That may seem to be arbitrary, but it’s not. That’s because taking one good to a logical extreme may conflict with other goods.

For example, one might argue that if lymphoma is bad, then it’s good to find the cure for lymphoma. And if it’s good to find the cure for lymphoma, then we should do whatever it takes to find the cure for lymphoma.

But the problem with that argument is that if we devote all our R&D resources to discovering the cure for lymphoma, we are diverting R&D resources away from discovering the cure for many other equally harmful diseases.

All things being equal, it makes sense to do whatever it takes to find the cure for lymphoma. All things considered, it doesn’t make sense to value that outcome to the exclusion of many competing values.

To take another example, public safety is generally a good thing. It’s appropriate to take reasonable precautions against unnecessary risk.

And by that logic, a liberal will promote regulations that minimize risk. That seems consistent. Carried to a logical extreme, you end up with the food Nazis and other excesses.

Does that make sense? Not really. For this is also the logic of the germaphobe. The germaphobe is so risk-averse, so terrified of contamination, that he never leaves the house. He takes extreme precautions to avoid infection. As a result, he has no social life.

That may be narrowly logical, but that’s broadly irrational. It absolutizes one value to the detriment of other values. It destroys the germaphobe’s quality of life. 

There is also an internal tension when we carry this policy to a logical extreme. By taking extreme measures to avoid exposure to germs or contaminants, the germaphobe is putting himself at risk in another respect, for he is lowering his resistance to infection as well as weakening his immune system’s ability to combat infection. Avoiding exposure is reasonable up to a certain point, but counterproductive if taken to extreme lengths.

There’s no doubt that if we endorse mandatory vaccination, the liberal will use that as a wedge issue to promote full-blown social engineering. My immediate point is that this conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise.

2) The common good

Vaccination can’t be treated purely as an issue of individual rights, for the obvious reason that human beings are social creatures. We live in communities. The impact of contagious disease doesn’t begin and end with the individual. In many diseases, social contact is a common means of transmission.

An extreme example is the carrier, who is immune to the disease, but infects others. Typhoid Mary is a classic case. A carrier has to be quarantined, even though that isn’t very fair to the carrier.

On a related note, there is the need to take reasonable precautions against epidemics and pandemics. The libertarian argument won’t work, because the condition of the infected individual will impact other individuals. In this case, you can’t isolate the rights of one individual from the rights of other affected individuals. For the one endangers the many.

So we need to distinguish between gov’t mandating something for your own good, and mandating something for the public good.

Some libertarians grant this distinction, but others operate with a minarchic philosophy.

Another potential benefit of mass vaccination is that it confers herd immunity. And that, in turn, confers a survival advantage on those who are less resistant. Or so I’ve read.

3) Parental rights

We live in a time and place where parental rights have been seriously eroded. So many parents have a well-founded fear of the Nannystate.

But once again, we need to avoid extremes. On the one hand, you have parents who don’t look out for the best interests of their kids. Take a Muslim couple who wants to have their daughter circumcised. Female genital mutilation is hardly in the best interests of the child.

Or take cult members who refuse blood transfusions for their underage children. I think adult cult members should generally have the right to refuse medical care. I don’t think they should have an absolute right to endanger their children.

Or take this case:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5357002/Manhunt-for-mother-after-she-refuses-cancer-treatment-for-son.html

So there’s the problem of abusive parents. Parental neglect. In that situation, there is a place for gov’t intervention.

On the other hand, you also have abusive civil servants. Abuse of power.

Not only are judges and social workers inherently unreliable to some degree, but if you give them the final say, then that makes them even more unreliable. That invites abuse of power. For they cease to be accountable.

Take CPS. There are situations in which a child should be removed from the home. Situations in which parental custody should be terminated. But, of course, you also have horror stories about CPS agents run amok.

There are times when CPS intervenes prematurely, and other times when CPS waits too long.

4) Striking a balance

Apropos (3), there is no ideal solution. No failsafe. That being the case, the best we can do is to build some flexibility into the system. It’s a mistake to give one designated class the final say-so all the time.

In this post I haven’t actually taken a position on mandatory vaccination. I’m just framing the issue. To oppose mandatory vaccination in principle is wrong. At that same time, that leaves plenty of leeway for debates over when that’s appropriate, and the process by which that policy is implemented.