How accountable are people for knowing and understanding? When asked if they believe in global warming, politicians answer, “I’m not a scientist”. When asked if he was accountable for his actions, the lawyers of admitted Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev answer, “His brother led him astray”. When asked if vaccines work, ‘anti-vaxxers’ say, “There is doubt”. Doubt isn’t necessarily bad, in fact, the questioning of what is accepted has led to beneficial changes in everything from science through art. But when does doubt stop being a benefit and start being an impediment? The fact is, everything has doubt. If a person gets into their car today, is there a chance they will get hit by a meteorite? Sure. But is it likely? No. Is it possible that vaccines cause autism? Sure. Is it likely? No, not in the slightest. The anti-vaccination movement often resorts to this logic, that any amount of doubt justifies inaction. But if people truly lived by this theory, no one would ever do anything. So should people be required by law to vaccinate themselves and their children?

Those in favor of mandatory vaccination claim that this unreasonable doubt in vaccines is dangerous. That is true. Vaccines have saved millions of lives and the resistance of the entire group is necessary to protect such individuals as the sick, the elderly, or infants from contracting potentially deadly diseases, as well as those who, for medical reasons, cannot get vaccines and have weak immune systems. Many are motivated by their desire to protect loved ones in this position who could be harmed. They say that the right of people to choose whether they vaccinate or not is subordinate to the need to protect others. But one must recognize that anti-vaxxers hold their position, however illogical, from the same concern: of something they can’t control that could harm their loved ones. Before anyone’s rights are taken away, it is necessary to view the situation from the other side’s point of view: how would you wish to be treated in their situation?

For to say that if one’s action could potentially harm another, then they must submit to government interference is a slippery slope. A person living a less than perfect lifestyle costs taxpayers money if they are on a government insurance plan. What type of car a person drives affects their greenhouse gas emissions and therefore everyone. How you talk to others affects their self esteem and could cause them to kill themselves. The vote cast by an individual influences who will lead the country, affecting everyone. All these things hold potential harm for everyone, but it’s recognized that, aside from moderate restraints such as anti-bullying laws or the electoral college for government, these are risks that have to be taken because to mandate the less risky actions infringes on the rights of others. If you give power to the government to take away an individual’s power to choose when the individual is wrong, you give the government power when the individual is right. A precedent set by mandating vaccinations would be used when the government advocates something that actually is harmful.

The center of the debate isn’t whether vaccines are dangerous or not; that has already been decided. The true issue is the choice between freedom and safety. The government can provide protection, but it can also be tyrannous. Whenever it is given more power, it provides more safety but allows less freedom. Whenever it allows more freedom, it can do less to make our country safe. That is the big question with freedom: the power to choose allows people to choose wrong. With freedom comes risk, the same risk taken whenever we respect the democratic choice of a leader we don’t like, or when a person makes a potentially dangerous health decision. But for sake of our nation and respect for rights and choice, we need to find a way to work towards what we think is the correct decision while upholding these principles.

Neither extreme is absolutely right. If the government had no power, there would be chaos and no effective solution could be reached. With too much, individuals would have no power. Less vaccinations will lead to increased danger from disease, but government enforcement sets a dangerous precedent. The best path is the middle road, requiring those who use public services such as schools to be vaccinated. Keeping the un-vaccinated away from these places would reduce the risk of spreading disease and would provide encouragement, but respect the rights of those who believe it to harmful. The solution isn’t perfect but that is the downside of democracy: you don’t always get your way. Just remember that by respecting the rights of others, you help ensure the protection of your rights when you are at the whim of the majority.