The Concept of Negative Freedom: Vaccination
One of the urgent themes of freedom is vaccination. During the Rally for Conscientious Exemption to Vaccination, Barbara Fisher gave a speech on mandatory childhood vaccinations and how they breach the freedoms of citizens in the US. Fisher incorporates the concept of negative freedom, freedom from interference, to strengthen the argument, and also outline the health risks that act as consequences. There is also the use of John Stuart Mills’ ‘Harm Principle’ to support Fisher’s demand for freedom from interference. In opposition to Fisher, positive liberty agrees with the interference made as some instances require a proxy agency when individual agency lacks knowledge and understanding of an issue.
The article and speech argues that parents should have the right to choose whether or not they would like to vaccinate their children. This indicates that Fisher utilises the concept of negative freedom. According to Isaiah Berlin, negative freedom is ‘freedom from’, meaning that individuals liberties should be free from interference from others, while also having choices laid open to them. This is the notion of having the opportunity, and not having someone’s liberty breached by forcefulness.
If we cannot be free to make informed, voluntary decisions about which pharmaceutical products we are willing to risk our lives for, then we are not free in any sense of the word.
Here, Fisher is stating that parents in the US have a breach to their negative freedom of non-interference and their individual agency. There is proxy agency (outside interference) occurring to citizens and parents across the US by their government. Due to the interference of others, Fisher and those who wish to not vaccinate are deemed ‘unfree’. Fisher has constructed her speech to reflect the concept of negative freedom and the need for choices and individual agency, thus exposing the proxy agency from the US government.
Fisher explains the consequences of forced vaccination in children. Reactions, brain inflammation, permanent damage/disability and death are few results that have occurred nationwide. Yet response to these issues by the State has been the write off of coincidence. No American should be legally forced to play vaccine roulette with a child’s life.
US government plays off the harm falling onto children due to this force as following the greater good. Is this for the greater good of the community? Is what Fisher is essentially enquiring, as she points out the lack of limitations the State will go to in order to achieve this ‘greater good’ and any sacrifices the government is ready to make. The greater good being what is good or more correct for the general public over individual liberty. This notion of the greater good brings about the ‘Harms Principle’ concept by John Stuart Mills. This is the principle of allowing people to act and make choices however they please unless they infringe on others or intend to cause harm. It was designed to restrict to restrict criminalistic actions, so based on this principle, the choice to not vaccinate does not intend to cause to harm others. Therefore, the article’s argument is to, …fight for the right to use our intelligence and follow our conscience when making health care decisions for ourselves and our children.
Using Mills’ Harm Principle and Barbara Fisher’s statements and research backs the argument of interference by the state, thus a breach of negative liberty to individuals and citizens. An alternative point of view to Fisher’s negative liberty argument on vaccines is looking at it positively. Positive liberty, according to Berlin, is ‘freedom to’ and the action of doing something. This is the freedom of the higher-self controlling the lower-self and making rationalised and non-impulsive decisions. Any restrictions of liberty, according to Berlin, are due to internalised feelings of, for example, self-doubt or greed. This positive argument differs from the negative by being in favour of compulsory childhood vaccinations. A breach of positive freedom, in relation to vaccinations in the US, is when parents refuse to vaccinate out of ignorance and a lack of education about the properties of vaccines. The aim of vaccines is to prevent infectious diseases such as polio, measles and whooping cough, therefore benefitting individuals and the general public. According to positive freedom, there are instances in which people can lack individual agency, therefore there is the need for proxy agency. In this instance, Fisher and those who also believe their negative freedom has been breached due to forced childhood vaccinations, do not contain the knowledge, education and experience to make the rational decision. This state interference of mandatory vaccinations is minimum and benefitting the community as a whole, therefore not breaching people’s positive liberty. Thus, positive freedom and its compulsory vaccinations contrast Fishers use of negative liberty within her argument.
In summary, Barbara Fisher utilised the concept of negative freedom to highlight the importance of non-interference and being provided with the choice to make your own individual decisions. There is reference to the ignorance of the consequences of childhood vaccinations, supported by John Stuart Mills’ ‘Harm Principle’, where this choice of not vaccinating does not harm others and therefore should be admissible. Positive liberty contrasts Fisher’s views by supporting the proxy agency by the government, as it is needed in these dire circumstances.
