There are actually two different issues in this thread. Who should decide whether children get vaccinated is a different question from whether an adult should be forced to get vaccinated. I'll follow up on the second of these first, since it's all I discussed above.
Even for deadly diseases, adults should be able to refuse vaccination. Generally, they won't, since it's not rational to, but if they choose to refuse the vaccine, and then contract the disease, the only people they put at risk are (1) themselves; (2) other people who have not been vaccinated; and (3) people who cannot get vaccinated due to a health problem.
(1) is only your concern.
As for (2), if you choose not to get vaccinated, or have not yet been vaccinated, obviously it's your responsibly to appreciate all of the risks of your unvaccinated state.
(3) is the most difficult case, but these people have the option of taking precautions to avoid contracting the disease, such as minimising contact with others. It's unreasonable for everybody else to surrender control of their own bodies in order to marginally improve the (3) group's quality of life, and the improvement is indeed marginal, since most people will be getting vaccinated against a deadly disease, mandatory or not.
[Alternatively, if you don't like my approach to (3), there is another one that could also work. One could view transmitting a contagious disease to others as a form of assault, and punish the spread of it on those grounds. With this approach, you only restrict the freedom of those people who actually cause harm to others, rather than restricting everybody's freedom. There's some movement toward this approach with sexually transmitted diseases in some jurisdictions. Practically speaking it's more difficult for a disease like the flu, since it's not easy to detect who gave it to you and so on, but I would still consider this approach on the table. I only mention this approach because if you people believe it should be "legally wrong" not to get vaccinated, this is the proper way to enforce it within the framework of a free society.]
Since I said "most" people will vaccinate against a deadly disease regardless of whether it's mandatory, let's consider who won't, among people who can:
(1) People with some sort of philosophical objection to vaccines. Whatever we think of these people, existing "mandatory vaccination" schemes in the US already grant them an exception to vaccination.
(2) People who are dubious of the efficacy of the vaccination or possible side effects. This is almost always unwarranted and the actual science almost always seems to suggest vaccines are safe. There is at least one way you can work around this without restricting freedom:
Try to convince these people otherwise! If you believe everybody should be vaccinated, rather than petitioning the government to restrict freedom, start a campaign which appeals to private persons. Run ads, give speeches, etc. outlining the advantages of being vaccinated for individuals and for society. Highlight the actual science of the safety and efficacy. Use actual arguments rather than a freedom-restricting approach of "you are getting vaccinated whether you like it or not". I'd even be fine with the government itself running such a campaign, if they are the ones offering the vaccination (which they usually are). In practice, such campaigning always accompanies large vaccination programmes, and it does work.
My conclusion is that an adult not vaccinating himself tends to have a minor effect on "society" at large, and that alternatives exist to mandatory vaccination (namely information campaigns) to encourage mass vaccination. The restriction on freedom of mandatory vaccination is unjustified.
Even for deadly diseases, adults should be able to refuse vaccination. Generally, they won't, since it's not rational to, but if they choose to refuse the vaccine, and then contract the disease, the only people they put at risk are (1) themselves; (2) other people who have not been vaccinated; and (3) people who cannot get vaccinated due to a health problem.
(1) is only your concern.
As for (2), if you choose not to get vaccinated, or have not yet been vaccinated, obviously it's your responsibly to appreciate all of the risks of your unvaccinated state.
(3) is the most difficult case, but these people have the option of taking precautions to avoid contracting the disease, such as minimising contact with others. It's unreasonable for everybody else to surrender control of their own bodies in order to marginally improve the (3) group's quality of life, and the improvement is indeed marginal, since most people will be getting vaccinated against a deadly disease, mandatory or not.
[Alternatively, if you don't like my approach to (3), there is another one that could also work. One could view transmitting a contagious disease to others as a form of assault, and punish the spread of it on those grounds. With this approach, you only restrict the freedom of those people who actually cause harm to others, rather than restricting everybody's freedom. There's some movement toward this approach with sexually transmitted diseases in some jurisdictions. Practically speaking it's more difficult for a disease like the flu, since it's not easy to detect who gave it to you and so on, but I would still consider this approach on the table. I only mention this approach because if you people believe it should be "legally wrong" not to get vaccinated, this is the proper way to enforce it within the framework of a free society.]
Since I said "most" people will vaccinate against a deadly disease regardless of whether it's mandatory, let's consider who won't, among people who can:
(1) People with some sort of philosophical objection to vaccines. Whatever we think of these people, existing "mandatory vaccination" schemes in the US already grant them an exception to vaccination.
(2) People who are dubious of the efficacy of the vaccination or possible side effects. This is almost always unwarranted and the actual science almost always seems to suggest vaccines are safe. There is at least one way you can work around this without restricting freedom:
Try to convince these people otherwise! If you believe everybody should be vaccinated, rather than petitioning the government to restrict freedom, start a campaign which appeals to private persons. Run ads, give speeches, etc. outlining the advantages of being vaccinated for individuals and for society. Highlight the actual science of the safety and efficacy. Use actual arguments rather than a freedom-restricting approach of "you are getting vaccinated whether you like it or not". I'd even be fine with the government itself running such a campaign, if they are the ones offering the vaccination (which they usually are). In practice, such campaigning always accompanies large vaccination programmes, and it does work.
My conclusion is that an adult not vaccinating himself tends to have a minor effect on "society" at large, and that alternatives exist to mandatory vaccination (namely information campaigns) to encourage mass vaccination. The restriction on freedom of mandatory vaccination is unjustified.
