In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), theUnited States Supreme Court upheld the right of states to enactcompulsory vaccination laws—one of the most challengingconstitutional dimensions of public health. It also provided theterms for what would eventually become a core question of publichealth ethics.

This case has become the precedent for many cases that havechallenged vaccination laws. Both majority and dissenting opinionsin numerous decisions have cited this case in reference to states’authority to constrain individual behavior. These cases haveinvolved issues ranging from fluoridation of municipal watersupplies, to abortion, to the right to die. In Buck v.Bell (1927), the Supreme Court usedJacobson v.Massachusetts (1905) to uphold a forced-sterilization lawusing the reasoning that society must be protected from the burdensimposed by the offspring of “imbeciles.” Despite the troubling usesto which this decision has been put, public health law textscontinue to cite the case as an example of the ways that publichealth practices must resolve the tensions between individualrights and the collective well-being.

Based on these Supreme Court decisions, respond to thefollowing:

• Do you believe health departments should be able to enter yourhouse without a warrant from a judge?
• Should health departments be able to isolate or quarantine youwithout a trial? Why or why not?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1st Answer According to my opinion the health departments should not be able to enter your house without a warrant from a judge unless they have a 100 ... View the full answer