Background of the Topic
The focus of this topic involves the analysis and evaluation of mandatory vaccination in light of legal and political challenges. In this regard, more emphasis placed on the importance for people to get vaccinated as well as examining the legal obstacles that continue to be experienced through the introduction and implementation of mandatory vaccination. There are also some highlights regarding various constitutional and legal issues associated with compulsory vaccination. It is noteworthy that critics have continually highlighted their concerns as well as raise several legal and political challenges to the aspect of mandatory vaccination. Some experts have argued that every state should embrace the concept of mandatory vaccination unless there are credible and proven medical concerns for certain individuals. This implies that exemptions to compulsory vaccination should not be allowed to find their basis on conscience, philosophy, or religious doctrines. Essentially, the interest of the government in ensuring that members of its population are protected and safe from the spread of communicable diseases is a justification for the introduction and implementation of mandatory vaccination for children.
Relevance to Current Public Health Issues/Concerns
According to Baylac (2017), several reasons explain the importance for people to get vaccinated as well as being perceived as a matter of legal requirement by the government. Vaccinations usually play a critical role when it comes to saving human life. Due to advancements in the field of medical science, vaccination has proven to play a crucial role in protecting children against several illnesses and medical conditions than ever before. Some of these illnesses and diseases were once killing children at very high rates before the government moved in with drastic measures which include advocating for mandatory vaccination anchored in law (GovTrack.US, 2019). The implementation of mandatory vaccination that is strongly supported by legal provisions is believed to be capable of achieving complete elimination of certain dangerous diseases like measles and polio from the population. Besides, the accompaniment and support from strong legal provisions play a vital role in ensuring that the administration of such vaccines to the population is adequately supervised and regulated. Such regulatory policies usually ensure that quacks and unqualified practitioner are stopped from conducting the vaccination exercise, thereby avoiding instances of administration of injection of children nursing poisonous or unauthorized substances.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Essentially, regulatory legal provisions and measures are usually incorporated in the vaccination exercises with the major aim of realizing effectiveness and safety. For example, the introduction of mandatory vaccination exercise in the United States played a significant role in the elimination of polio from amongst its population. At one time, polio was regarded as among the most dangerous diseases in the United States, considering that it was causing several paralysis and deaths across various states with the country. However, the introduction of the concept of mandatory vaccination ensured that no new infections were recorded and the United States has continued free from any reported case of polio to date. The observation by Ventola (2016) indicates that another reason why people need to get vaccinated is that vaccinations represent an effective and safe way of controlling the spread of certain diseases such as measles among people in a given population.
Vaccines are supposed to be administered to children following a careful and extensive review by doctors, scientists, nurses, and other healthcare practitioners. In some cases, vaccinations may be accompanied by a certain level of pain or discomfort. Harlan and the Supreme Court of the United States (1904) opine that it is correct to claim that mandatory vaccination is constitutional. In the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905, the Supreme Court found and held that the mandatory vaccination laws that had been established by different states were constitutional owing to their necessity and role in protecting the health of the members of the public. Besides, the court has gone ahead to affirm the constitutionality of compulsory vaccination by states in cases such as Zucht v. King, where it upheld that childhood vaccination was a mandatory requirement for children enrolling into public schools (Brandeis & Supreme Court of The United States, 1922).
However, it is worth acknowledging that such levels of discomfort or paid are quite minimal compared to trauma and other forms sufferings associated with the illnesses that mandatory vaccines often seek to prevent. Some researchers have always argued that there need substantive legal provisions in place to guide the entire excises of vaccination to prevent loopholes that may be detrimental to the populations. Besides, it is believed that some vaccines may be accompanied by certain levels of side effects like allergic reactions if they are not appropriately monitored and regulated. Nonetheless, the benefits associated with vaccination and other forms of prevention of diseases are more and greater as compared to the kind of side effects that may be experienced. Due to legal requirements, children in the United States are still entitled to be vaccinated as a way of effectively stopping the spread of certain preventable and communicable diseases. Baylac (2017) argues that failure to have mandatory vaccination supported and regulated by legal policies is risky in the sense that it could make it quite difficult for governmental and non-governmental agencies in the health sector to control the spread of preventable diseases. It is noteworthy that there have been resurgences of whooping cough and measles over the last couple of years owing to lack of appropriate legal frameworks to support mandatory vaccination.
Class action lawsuits have a higher likelihood of providing a more effective framework that can be useful in pursuing various legal claims. According to ("Rule 23") of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, members of a class may be allowed to be sued or sue on behalf of other members as representative parties. Although each state is mandated to sets forth its policies and legal provisions concerning the civil procedure with distinct requirements for such lawsuits, most of them have decided to adopt the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. According to Ventola (2016), studies have previously been able to demonstrate the enormous value of benefits associated with vaccinations when it comes to avoiding unnecessary suffering and preventing death. Routine immunization among children is capable of preventing more than 40,000 childhood deaths annually. Besides, the American Academy of Pediatrics has been able to confirm that vaccines administered to children are between 90% and 99% effective in the prevention of various diseases. Therefore, it is worth arguing that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that mandatory vaccinations are essential in saving the lives of children. Mandatory vaccinations also play a critical role in protecting those who may not be in a position to be vaccinated for one reason or another.
How Public Health Law has been Furthered, Impacted, or Established as a result of the Topic
Public Health Law has been impacted and furthered in several ways owing to discussions and arguments around the issue mandatory vaccination. In one of the famous case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the compulsory laws introduced by Massachusetts in requiring smallpox vaccinations among adults were upheld by the court. In its finding, the court observes that theses statutes were introduced and were expected to be implemented at a time when there were considerable threats to Massachusetts' population owing to the outbreak of smallpox (Harlan & Supreme Court of The United States, 1904). Further, the court observed that the laws meant to promote the safety and health of the public are classified under the sole discretion of the state unless they amount to the violation of the constitution. Besides, the rights of individuals are expected to yield to the police power of the state as a way of preserving the safety and health of the members of the public. According to the findings of the court in this particular case, the Board of Health and legislatures in Massachusetts had the discretion of enacting mandatory vaccination whenever they dimmed it necessary for the safety and health of the public.
In the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the argument by the defendant indicated that there was a higher likelihood that the vaccinations that were introduced by the Board of Health in Massachusetts could be harmful to certain specific individuals based on their medical conditions. Besides, it would be difficult to prove that the mandatory vaccination would be beneficial to different people in an individual case basis. The court held that the argument of the defendant failed in being persuasive since it did not identify and prove the existence of specific individuals who were not medically fit to receive the vaccinations. In its finding, the court also observed that there was no need for an individual who appeared to be in perfect health to reject vaccination in line with the statutes and laws adopted by the Board of Health in Massachusetts to protect and ensure the safety of the public. In such a situation, such individuals would be endangering the lives of other members of the public by aiding in the spread of the communicable disease (Harlan & Supreme Court of The United States, 1904).
In a different case of Zucht v. King , the court found and held that any city was within its constitutional right to introduce a mandatory vaccination meant for all school-going children as a preventive measure even when the immediate threat associated with an epidemic was not yet evident. In this case, Texas, San Antonio, ordinances demanded to have no child attending a public school or institution of learning without presenting a certificate for proof of having undergone a mandatory vaccination. Rosalyn Zucht was excluded from attending public and private schools since she failed to present the requisite vaccination certificate. Rosalyn's parents filed a legal suit in which they argued that the plaintiff was deprived of her rights by being required to accept a mandatory vaccination, yet she did not require it. These arguments were rejected by the Supreme Court, which held that the municipality was at liberty to vest broad discretion in its officials when it comes to issues affecting the enactment and application of health statutes. Besides, the court held that the ordinances were perfectly entitled to exercise a broader discretion necessary for protecting the public health (Brandeis & Supreme Court of The United States, 1922).
According to Hinman, Orenstein, and Rodewald (2014), close to 20,000 cases of whooping cough have been reported yearly since 2010 in the United States. Whereas some babies may be too young to receive vaccinations for fear of contracting severe allergies, it is still important to continue advocating for mandatory vaccination. Vaccinations are also important in the sense that they significantly contribute to saving of time and money. The amount of money and time spent on a vaccination exercise is almost negligible compared to the ones spend on trying to manage to treat some of the diseases that should be prevented. Besides, immunization is one of the ways through which the health of future generations can be protected. Ventola (2016) acknowledges that vaccination in the United States has largely been responsible for the reduction and complete elimination of several diseases that were likely to paralyze or kill people. If the aspect of mandatory vaccination is introduced now, then the population can be protected in the future since most of such preventable diseases will stop affecting people. The United States has previously found itself on the verge of a crisis in the public health sector. For the last couple of decades, different states across the United States have required that parents to ensure that their children are vaccinated against various diseases such as measles and polio, as a prerequisite to enrolment in public schools.
Limitations
Part of the limitation of the topic of Mandatory Vaccination includes its interference with the right of individual to have their decisions and actions influenced by religious beliefs and conscience. During the deliberations on the California bill that sought to eliminate conscience and religious exemptions from the legal provisions for mandatory vaccination, those who were opposed to the bill asserted that parents are within their constitutional rights disagree with the compulsory vaccination on their children. However, Kevin and Alan (2007) argue that such rights do not exist in the constitution either are they backed by the constitution. Essentially, various courts considering challenges and threats to the legal provisions associated with the concept of mandatory vaccination have ended up upholding such provisions. Besides, different pieces of evidence demonstrate that parents lack asserted right nor religious freedom under the constitution to prevent their children from accessing and benefiting from compulsory vaccination. Hinman, Orenstein, and Rodewald (2014) clarify that different courts have been consistent in dismissing constitutional threats and challenges to mandatory vaccination statutes. The Supreme Court has, on two different occasions, regarded constitutional challenges to mandatory vaccination state laws. On both occasions, the challenges were dismissed, and the statutes upheld.
Whereas almost all states have attempted to tailor their vaccination statutes to exempt those with philosophical or religious objections to the exercise, widespread adoption of such exemptions has proved to undermine most of the advantages associated with mandatory vaccinations. Since there is a very low likelihood that state governments will engage in outright elimination of exemptions, society would be expected to consider other alternatives such as the provision of incentives for vaccination as well as compensation of those who may have suffered owing to a disease outbreak resulting from loss of herd immunity. One of the most common obstacles to the application of legal measures in supporting the context of mandatory vaccination is the difficulty experienced when it comes to the assessment of blame on any particular community or individual for loss of herd immunity (Baylac, 2017). Considering that herd immunity is capable of being perpetuated even in instances where about ten percent of a community fails to be vaccinated, it may be impossible to specifically identify the individuals could be linked to the causing of considerable damage and losses to society, and such losses may be attributable to various actors. Whereas hospitals and other institutions may have experienced losses that are sufficient to justify legal actions, many people may have also suffered from injuries that may not be sufficient to justify the expenses of filing a lawsuit.
Conclusion/Summary
In summing up, it is noteworthy that there exist several reasons explaining the importance of mandatory vaccination despite legal and constitutional challenges. Regulatory legal provisions and measures are usually incorporated in the vaccination exercises with the major aim of realizing effectiveness and safety. Vaccines may be accompanied by certain levels of side effects like allergic reactions if they are not appropriately monitored and regulated. However, the advantages of vaccination and other forms of prevention of diseases are more significant compared to the kind of side effects that may be experienced. The rights of individuals in choosing whether to accept or reject mandatory vaccinations would be expected to yield to the police power of the state as a way of preserving the safety and health of the members of the public.
References
Baylac, B. (2017). The Antivaccine Heresy. Jacobson v. Massachusetts and the Troubled History of Compulsory Vaccination in the United States: University of Rochester Press, 2015, 352 p., 125 $. Canadian Bulletin Of Medical History , 34 (1), 285-287. doi: 10.3138/cbmh.34.1.285
Brandeis, L. D. & Supreme Court Of The United States. (1922) U.S. Reports: Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 . [Periodical] Retrieved from the Library of Congress,
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep260174/.
GovTrack.us. (2019). H.R. 1973 — 116th Congress: Vaccine Access Improvement Act of 2019 . Retrieved from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1973
GovTrack.us. (2019). H.R. 2527 — 116th Congress: Vaccinate All Children Act of 2019. Retrieved from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr2527
Harlan, J. M. & Supreme Court Of The United States. (1904) U.S. Reports: Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 . [Periodical] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep197011/.
Hinman, A., Orenstein, W., & Rodewald, L. (2014). Financing Immunizations in the United States. Clinical Infectious Diseases , 38 (10), 1440-1446. doi: 10.1086/420748
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. Reports 11 (Supreme Court Of The United States, 1905).
Kevin M., & Alan R. (2007). Vaccination Mandates: The Public Health Imperative and Individual Rights, in Law in Public Health Practice 338, 346
United States Congress. Vaccine Act of 1813 (1813). United States.
Ventola C. L. (2016). Immunization in the United States: Recommendations, Barriers, and Measures to Improve Compliance: Part 1: Childhood Vaccinations. P & T: a peer -reviewed journal for formulary management , 41 (7), 426–436.
Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. Reports 174 (Supreme Court Of The United States 1922)
