Jacobson vs Massachusetts - Public Health Legislation - Case Study Example

Health law 2006 Outline: A) Jacobson v. Massachusetts facts. B) Defendant’s claims and propositions, their validity. C) The right for liberty and state regulation. D) Why did the court reject the defendant’s propositions? E) The basis for the verdict of the court Description: In this paper we review Jacobson v. Massachusetts case which concerns public health legislation. We see how legislation protects public health and how individual interests are excluded from it. Jacobson v. Massachusetts 197 U.S. 11 (1905) is the court case which concerned public health issues. The basis of the argument was the refusal of Jacobson to be vaccinated against smallpox. The law chap. 75, 137 held that Massachusetts cities can require or enforce the residents to be vaccinated for the public health or safety. Those over twenty-one years of age and not under guardianship refuse or neglect the requirement will be fined 5$. The exception is made for the children that are proved to be unfit for vaccination In 1902 the board of health of Cambridge adopted the regulation to prevent smallpox and required the residents to be vaccinated or revaccinated. Jacobson refused to comply with the requirement and was proceeded against by a criminal complaint in one of the inferior courts of Massachusetts. The defendant pleaded not guilty. The government brought to the court proofs that the defendant was offered free of charge vaccination and refused from it not complying with regulations of the board of health. The proofs offered by the defendant were declined by the court as immaterial. The defendant claimed that 137 of chapter 75 of the Revised Laws of Massachusetts derogated the rights guaranteed in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States. The defendant referred to the derogation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States claiming the abridgment of the privileges or immunities of citizens. As defendant’s instructions were rejected, he requested the court to return a verdict of not guilty. However the court refused to instruct the jury and the verdict of guilty was returned. The defendant was sentenced to a fine of 5$. The court opinion was that the preamble of the Constitution of U.S had never had a power on the government or its departments. Such powers are granted in the body of the Constitution. However no power can be exerted by the United States unless it is found in some express delegation of power. 1 Story, Const. 462. The supreme judicial court of Massachusetts considered the offer of evidence of the defendant immaterial and unnecessary as he offered proofs which are the facts of common knowledge or his personal opinion. That’s why it may not serve the ground refusal to comply with the requirement. Personal views cannot effect the validity of the statute and allow an individual to not comply with its provisions. The propositions relating to dangerous effects of vaccination in its nature are a matter of opinion. These propositions can be transformed into competent evidence only if the experts testified these opinions. However in this case the validity of propositions is also doubtful as it is not enough to illustrate the danger of vaccination by some individual cases. The judge is obliged to consider the evidence in connection with facts of common knowledge. The testimony of experts would help in the light of centuries’ experience of effective vaccination. The risk of serious injury from the vaccination is too small against the benefits which vaccination offers. Moreover this opinion is generally supported by doctors as well as people, legislatures and courts. So the testimony of experts would not have changed the result of this case. The defendant refusing from vaccination claimed that his rights for liberty were infringed as the mandatory vaccination is derogates the right of every person to care for himself in the best manner according to his opinion. The requirement to be vaccinated is regarded as an assault upon the person and its rights secured by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. However the Constitution does not grant everyone with ultimate freedom and relieve from certain restraints. A person is always restricted by social norms of the society for the benefit of people and the common good. Otherwise the safety for all its members is not ensured. The orderly society cannot accept that each person is a law in himself as it would turn into anarchy. Real liberty can exist only if everyone cares for the other people living nearby oppressing one’s interests and personal wishes to the community’s interests. The possession of certain rights depends on conditions important that each person in a society feels safe, healthy, lives in orderly and moral community. The right for liberty is also restricted by such conditions and does not suppose the ultimate freedom of action. People are free from restraint only when it comes to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. The Constitution of Massachusetts sees the institution of the government as a promoter of the good and welfare of the commonwealth. The laws are adopted for the common good, everyone’s safety and happiness. If to apply these principles to the case under discussion we may claim that the requirement of the board of health for the total vaccination is seen as a measure to promote public health or the public safety. A board of health is seen as the authoritative body which has a power to require vaccination for the community self-defense and protection of community members from disease in the situation of pending smallpox epidemic. In the situation of the smallpox increasing at Cambridge authorities considered their duty to protect community from an epidemic threatening the safety of all. In such a situation authorities cared for the health and comfort of the many but not considered the interests of the few. It’s also true that in some situation a person may assert the supremacy of his own will but not in the case when it concerns the safety of the general public. The liberty is granted to each person by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. However in some situations a person is forced to perform some actions which are deemed to contribute to the common good. The propositions of the defendants contained the opinions of few doctors who consider vaccination as not effective means of preventing the smallpox or as the threat to health. The high medical authority on the other hand supported the opposite theory and this was known to the court. When passing the statute the legislature of Massachusetts had to choose between two opposing theories. It was the task of legislation to decide on the basis of processed information what the best way to protect community from epidemic is. The state legislature chose the theory which held that vaccination is the best-known method to suppress smallpox epidemic. The legislative action in respect of a matter affecting the general welfare can be adjudged by the court only in case if it is a plain invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law. Then the court can give effect to the Constitution. The statue under discussion is not in palpable conflict with the Constitution. Authorities of other countries also used statutes requiring vaccination to prevent the spread of smallpox. The vaccination is a general practice in almost every state and moreover in most states of Europe. The legislature and the courts rely on the common belief which does not require evidence to establish its existence. Of course, no belief can be universal as there’s no such a belief which would be supported by everyone. The legislature passed the law relying on the common belief of people that vaccination would prevent the spread of disease. Based on the common belief of people, the statute in question is a health law enacted in a reasonable and proper exercise of the police power. 179 N. Y. 235, 72 N. E. 97. The benefit of vaccination against contagious diseases is backed up by the experience of different countries. That’s why neither the court nor the jury can disregard the legislation because of doubts as to the benefit of vaccination. While the defendant’s arguments against vaccination were based on the opinions which differed from the general opinion, the court reject them. However the defendant could bring to the court other proofs, which would make the court and juries to free the defendant from the compliance to the law. There were some distinct facts which might have been considered if presented to the court. The defendant tried to prove that vaccination quite often resulted in serious injury of vaccinated person’s health. He claimed that there were no objective tests to prove that a person is unfit for vaccination or the vaccination is impure and dangerous to be used. The legislature assumed that health conditions of the children may make them unfit subject of vaccination and relieved them from the compliance with the statute. It gives the ground to suggest that this is true in case of some adults. The defendant made a proposition that he refused from the vaccination because he suffered from the disease caused by the vaccination in his childhood. The same results he witnessed in case of his son and others. However the defendant was unable to prove by the reason of his condition that he was unfit for vaccination at the time when the statute was enacted. If the defendant had proved all his propositions, legislative department would be relieved from its function to care for the public health and safety in the time of epidemics. That would mean that compulsory vaccination could not be legally enforced in a community in spite of the spread of smallpox and firmness of the general belief. It’s not wise to consider the privilege of a minority, subordinating the welfare and safety of an entire community to the interests of a single individual of the community. The Constitution of the United States cannot grant such liberty to a single individual or a minority group to dominate majority supported by the authority of the state. Since the safety and health of majority was endangered the government was obliged to take wise actions to protect people of the community. The court stated that legislation was not in opposition to the right secured by the Federal Constitution. The statute was designed in such a way as to exclude the cases of cruelty and inhumanity when individual health is endangered. We mean exception of children from mandatory vaccination. The court informed that in the case under question the statute did not establish absolute rule and the defendant would not be vaccinated if he could prove that he was unfit subject for vaccination at the time and that vaccination would impair his health. But the defendant was in perfect health and refused from vaccination endangering public health. The court decided that the case was covered under statute. Bibliography U.S. Supreme Court. JACOBSON v. COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) No. 70. www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/188/ retr. 16 Feb. 2006 Read More