Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

A federal compulsory vaccination plan

Michael Ulrich, BS, JD

Abstract


During oral arguments for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Justice Breyer on several occasions questioned whether the federal government could compel individuals to be vaccinated in the event of a national emergency where a highly contagious disease was sweeping through the country. This article does not seek to predict or analyze the legal implications of such an action; rather it argues that a national approach to such an emergency should be implemented. Recent concerns over the potential for H5N1, or “bird flu,” to become airborne illustrate the type of epidemic that Justice Breyer may have been envisioning. By broaching this subject now, instead of in the midst of an outbreak, adequate time is left to research appropriate solutions, allow for debate, and provide public education.While vaccination laws are typically promulgated on the state level under state police power, these compulsory laws are accompanied by exemptions that can undermine their effectiveness. For example, religious and philosophical exemptions have led to outbreaks of pertussis, or whooping cough, in multiple states. Considering the various state exemptions along with laws granting governors and health officials broad power to alter vaccination laws during emergencies, it is nearly impossible to predict how individual states will respond. Legally and ethically speaking, the rights of individuals are not absolute and cannot be utilized to subject others to harm.A federal compulsory vaccination law allows for balancing individual rights and public health, with the interests of the nation as a whole in mind.

Keywords


federal, compulsory, vaccination, emergency, outbreak

Full Text:

PDF

References


Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111–148, 124 Stat. 119, 2010.

The Supreme Court of the United States: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Cases and Transcripts, March 26-28, 2012. Available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PPAACA.aspx. Accessed on May 29, 2012.

Parmet WE: The individual mandate: Implications for public health law. J Law Med Ethics. 2011; 39: 401, 404.

Osterholm MT, Henderson DA: Life sciences at a crossroads: Respiratory transmissible H5N1. Science. 2012; 335: 801.

Fouchier RAM, Herfst S, Osterhaus ADME: Restricted data on influenza H5N1 virus transmission. Science. 2012; 335: 662.

Perez DR: H5N1 debates: Hung up on the wrong questions. Science. 2012; 33: 799.

Enserink M: Controversial studies give a deadly virus wings. Science. 2012; 334: 1192–1193.

Cohen J, Malakoff D: On second thought, flu papers get go-ahead. Science. 2012; 336: 19-20. (2012).

Kawaoka Y: Flu transmission work is urgent. Nature. 2012; 482(7384): 155.

Jack A: The risks of research. The Financial Times. April 11, 2012: 7.

Gostin LO: Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint (Ogalthorpe L, ed.), 2nd ed. California: University of California Press, 2008: 92.

Lin RG II: Unimmunized adults, teens a factor in spread of whooping cough, officials say. L.A. Times. September 23, 2010.

Gram D: Should parents be allowed to decline vaccines? Vermont debates. Time, April 23, 2012, Available at http://healthland.time.com/2012/04/23/should-parents-be-allowed-to-declinevaccines-vermont-debates/. Accessed May 4, 2012.

Stewart AM, Rosenbaum S: Vaccinating the health–care workforce: State law vs. institutional requirements. Public Health Rep. 2010; 125(4): 615, 616.

Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 US 11, 25 (1905).

Zucht v King, 260 US 174, 177 (1922).

Boone v Boozeman, 217 F.Supp.2d 938, 954 (2002).

Parmet WE: Pandemic vaccines—The legal landscape. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362: 1949, 1952.

Prince v Massachusetts, 321 US 158 (1944).

Prince v Massachusetts, 321 US 166–67 (1944).

Brown v Stone, 378 So. 2d 218, 223 (Miss. 1979).

Brown v stone, 378 So. 2d 218 (Miss. 1979), cert. denied, 449 US 887 (1980).

Employment Division v Smith, 494 US 872, 878–79 (1990).

Cruzan v Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 US 261 (1990).

Cruzan v Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 US 270 (1990).

Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 US 11 (1905).

Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 US 26 (1905).

Public Health Service Act §§ 361–368, 42 USC §§ 264–272.

42 USC § 264.

42 USC. § 271

28 USC § 1331.

Osterholm MT, Kelley NS: Mammilian–transmissible H5N1 influenza: Facts and perspective. mBio. 2012; 3: e00045-12.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.2012.0098

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018 Journal of Emergency Management