preview

John Stuart Mill's Case Study On Vaccinations

Decent Essays

Liberalist philosopher, John Stuart Mill, set out his defence on the presumption in favour of freedom in arguably one of his most famous works, On Liberty (Hoffman & Graham 2006, p.38). There, he formulated what he identified as “a very simple principle” (Hampsher-Monk 2015, p.526):
The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection, that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. (Mill & Himmelfarb 1977).
This is now referred to as the “harm principle”, …show more content…

It follows, that the state should not lawfully exercise power to avert harms that an individual inflicts upon him or herself (Gostin & Gostin 2009). Moreover, it is based on the liberal consensus that autonomous persons know what is in their best interest, and should therefore be free from paternalistic interventions that prevent them from pursuing any form of self-regarding behaviour (Gostin & Gostin 2009). Although, Mill dictates an exception that children, whom have not yet developed their intellectual and moral capacities, as the only category of individuals that can be subjected to paternalistic regulation (Hoffman & Graham 2006). Arguably in this sense, mandatory vaccination schemes possess a paternalistic quality as they impose marked disincentives for a failure to comply with mass immunisation programs. In fact, much of the modern day public health regulations operate outside the permissible boundaries of the Millian principle, in safeguarding the health and safety of the population (Gostin & Gostin 2009). It is perhaps for this reason then that many contemporary liberals struggle with the inflexibility of the harm principle. Particularly regarding the misplaced anti-paternalistic view of mandatory vaccination schemes from an entirely individualist perspective, rather than considering an individual’s place and effect within a wider society. Moreover, Gostin and Gostin (2009) reason that ‘if the collective benefits are high and the individual

Get Access