Mill's Argument Against Vaccination

Given that the parent has the complete right to decide for their newborns (since newborns are not capable of making the decision for themselves), should that individual be allowed to not vaccinate their newborns? Mill would most likely respond that the individual is free to not vaccinate their child unless it harms other people. Before we ultimately discern Mill’s position on whether society has authority over the individual’s decision in this case of vaccination, we must explain why there are anti-vaccination groups prevalent in societies today. The main issue anti-vaccination groups have with vaccines is that anti-vaccination groups believe that the substance called thimerosal, which is found in trace amounts, contributes to the development

One may say, “If I do something that’s only harming me, then society can’t step in and force me to do otherwise.” However, isn’t everything we do affecting other people in the society? For example, if a person were to not vaccinate his newborn and his newborn contracts a disease, it will affect others in society. In response, Mill would acknowledge that people are not fully isolated from society, and therefore the actions those people take will ultimately affect others and possibly do harm. However, he says, "But with regard to the merely contingent or, as it may be called, constructive injury which a person causes to society by conduct which neither violates any specific duty to the public, nor occasions perceptible hurt to any assignable individual except himself, the inconvenience is one which society can afford to bear, for the sake of the greater good of human freedom” (Mill 80). From this, we can infer that Mill would most likely agree that the individual is not doing any harm to others in society (and therefore society cannot intervene) even if he is indirectly harming people by not vaccinating their newborn, in order for the preservation of the greater good of human