Undergraduate students in a public health course at SMU honed their persuasive speaking abilities in a formal debate on the best approach to preventing measles outbreaks.
Measles, a highly contagious virus, has made a troubling resurgence in recent years, with Texas seeing a rise in cases. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report that measles can cause severe complications, including pneumonia, encephalitis, and even death, particularly in young children and immunocompromised individuals. To tackle this pressing issue, students in Dr. Eric Bing’s class, Pandemics! The Science of Disease Spread, Prevention, and Control (APSM/ ANTH/ MNO 4344), engaged in a series of debates on the question: To effectively prevent measles outbreaks, should Texas eliminate non-medical vaccine exemptions?
The Arguments: Public Safety vs. Personal Freedom
Throughout the three debates, students presented well-researched data, compelling arguments, and persuasive rebuttals. One side argued that Texas should eliminate non-medical vaccine exemptions to ensure herd immunity and protect vulnerable populations. They pointed to states like California and Mississippi, where such measures have significantly increased vaccination rates and reduced outbreaks. They emphasized that with vaccination rates in some Texas schools dropping as low as 60%, the risk of an outbreak is dangerously high.
Opposing teams countered that eliminating exemptions would infringe upon personal freedoms and religious rights. They highlighted concerns about government overreach and skepticism toward medical mandates, particularly among communities with historical distrust in public health policies. Instead, they proposed public education campaigns and incentive programs to encourage vaccination without enforcing mandates.
Judges’ Questions and Rebuttals
Following the initial arguments, judges posed challenging questions to test the strength of each team’s claims. One judge referenced a recent study indicating significantly lower vaccination rates in Texas private schools and asked whether the proposed policy could effectively address such gaps. Another judge questioned whether religious and philosophical exemptions could be preserved while still ensuring public safety.
The rebuttal phase saw a dynamic exchange of ideas. Those in favor of removing exemptions argued that vaccines, like seatbelts and smoking laws, are necessary for public health and that misinformation should not dictate policy. Opponents emphasized that forced compliance often backfires, leading to increased resistance and distrust.
The Verdict and Key Takeaways
After careful deliberation, the judges selected winners from each debate, citing their compelling use of data, clear argument structure, and effective refutation of counterpoints. However, all teams impressed with their depth of research and ability to articulate complex public health issues.
Students left the debate with a deeper understanding of the challenges surrounding vaccine policies and public health ethics. The discussion underscored the importance of balancing scientific evidence with individual rights, a debate that remains highly relevant in today’s society.
Throughout the semester, students will continue exploring global health challenges, learning how epidemiologists and public health officials design interventions to combat infectious diseases.
Interested in learning more about the Center for Global Health Impact? Visit our website, email us at globalhealthimpact@smu.edu, and engage with us on Twitter.