As H1N1 Hits Home, A Debate on the Ethics of Vaccination

By: Tyler Stearns

Posted: 9/10/09

Late this summer, as we were all eagerly preparing our returns to campus, the Health Center sent an e-mail titled "Student with Influenza" to the student body. The meaning was clear from the title alone: the H1N1 influenza virus, colloquially known as swine flu, had arrived. A student was infected. Now, what were we to do? We got the usual advice: "wash your hands" and "cover your face when you sneeze," etc. But real help is on the way. According to information in an e-mail and on the College Web site, the H1N1 vaccine should be available to the campus this fall.

This sounds all well and good, right? Maybe not. It would be wise to stand back and look at the whole picture before succumbing to hysterics.

In 1976, there was an outbreak of swine flu in America. As Congressman Ron Paul, a former medical doctor, recalled this past spring: "In 1976, we had a vote on the swine flu. The government was going to inoculate everybody and save the world from this disaster." Government involvement in a swine flu vaccination program was supported by the entire Congress, save two. Ron Paul and one other medical doctor cast the only dissenting votes.

It turns out they both had reason to be wary of so much hype and a fast-tracked release of a vaccine. As Penina Haber and colleagues noted in a scientific review article, there were more than 500 cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome and 25 deaths associated with the 1976 vaccine. That is more deaths than were caused by the swine flu itself. Needless to say, the vaccination program was quickly halted.

More than 30 years have passed since that event. We hope that scientists and policymakers have realized their mistakes and everything will go smoothly this time around. It is not clear that this is the case, however. Medical professionals are still worried about possible side effects of the new vaccine. Britain's Daily Mail has said that up to 50 percent of family doctors in the United Kingdom may not use the vaccine on themselves. The doctors cited inadequate testing of the vaccine and a lack of concern over the flu itself. One third of nurses in the United Kingdom have similar fears over the side effects and efficacy of the vaccine. A survey reported in the British Medical Journal found that only half of healthcare workers in Hong Kong were willing to get the vaccine. Even in the U.S., some parents are concerned about their children receiving the swine flu inoculation.

What will happen if vaccination is not generally accepted? Many of the healthcare professionals cited above said they might not get the vaccine because this strain seems to be relatively mild. Paul has noted this and added that the government could be hyping the situation to gain more control. President Obama has declared that vaccination is voluntary but "highly recommended." Some believe mandatory vaccination is not too far off. This may be unlikely, but the government's portrayal of swine flu as a national emergency could have the same effect.

It is not much of a stretch to imagine government officials using the swine flu scare as a means to usurp more powers from the citizenry. As H.L. Mencken famously remarked, "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." This becomes particularly clear during wartime. Governments use an enemy from without to force oppressive measures upon the populace. One need look no further than the Cold War, the lead-up to the Iraq War and the current demonization of Iran and North Korea.

Mandatory vaccination is not an unheard-of practice, either. Historically, many governments have adopted compulsory vaccination programs, most notably for children entering school. Given the near-monopoly of the public school system, there are many who are compulsorily vaccinated. This practice is absurd and slavish. It denies the right of every human being to the ownership of his or her body. In the name of some fictitious public good or social benefit, vaccines are made mandatory. If we can be forced to receive chemicals into our bodies for our own good, what else can we be coerced into doing for the sake of our own safety?

I say all of this in the hope that you will be more skeptical of the orthodox view passed down from on high. Certainly vaccines have been a boon to mankind: look to the eradication of smallpox. But it is important to remember to look not only at the benefits of a certain decision, but at the costs as well. What is lost may be more than what is gained.