Mandatory Screening Case Study

Vaccination is widely considered one of mankind’s utmost medical achievements. Diseases that were not long ago commonplace in society are now increasingly rare due vaccines. Despite this, the United States continues to allow vaccination exemptions for children on the basis of religious or philosophical beliefs. Today, the vast majority of states allow religious exemptions and a smaller, but still substantial, number of states permit the more troubling philosophical exemptions. The exemptions compromise vaccination programs and leave the population susceptible to outbreaks. Thus to stop the growing percentage of Americans claiming exemptions, the federal and state governments, could consider utilizing measures currently used in Australia and France that would further dissuade people from seeking such exemptions.

While supporting the voluntary immunization for children and defending the right to have information regarding the risk involved with vaccines, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) oppose the elimination of or possible barriers of entry to obtain Non-Medical Exemptions. In an effort to reduce vaccine related injuries and/or death and support those who do not want to receive vaccines due to personal, spiritual, or religious beliefs, the NVIC supports the right to Non-Medical Exemptions. The primary purpose of this paper is to analyze the safety, efficacy, and economic burden of vaccines, as well as the right to choice in regards to Non-Medical Exemptions.

In the 1850s the first school vaccination requirement were enacted to prevent smallpox. Federal and state efforts to eradicate measles in the 1960s and 1970s motivated many to mandate policies. By the 1990s, all 50 states requirement for children to be enrolled in school must receive certain immunizations and if these requirements were not met than children were not allowed to be enrolled in school (Center for Disease Control Prevention, 2010). For example, in the state of California, private public school or daycare cannot admit children unless vaccinations were received for all ten of the diseases. If the California Department of Public Health implements a requirement for vaccination parent can be allowed to obtain personal belief exemptions that would allow parents to opt out of vaccination for their children if form is filled out by healthcare professional that states vaccinations were countered to personal beliefs. This law has not been implemented as of yet but should be in 2016. The healthcare of policy decision in laws can have an influence on individuals based on the decision that are made. Health care policy and issues can affect providers and patients in many different ways. Stakeholders’ in the policymakers for vaccination main concern is the safety and health of children so the implement exemptions of laws from concern about vaccine

Examining previous Supreme Court rulings on rights verses vaccinations is one way to justify a new mandatory vaccination policy. However, the legislative branches of government must also agree, thus a cost benefit analysis is necessary to validate a mandatory vaccination.

There is no doubt that vaccination has been one of the greatest successes of public health programs in the 20th century. Vaccinations have eradicated naturally occurring smallpox, and have substantially reduced morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases that previously ravaged the population, such as polio and measles. Despite the successes, there has been a history of “anti-vaccinationists” in the U.S., who among other challenges, argued compulsory vaccination was an infringement upon personal liberty and their right to choice (1, 2). In fact, it took a Supreme Court decision to ultimately assert whether a state mandating vaccination infringed upon the U.S. Constitution.

The judgment raises interesting questions as to the characterisation of childbirth and parenthood within modern society. The majority in Cattanach appear to recognise this modern trend, treating the costs of raising a child born as a result of negligence as the consequential harm of an injury for which parents are entitled to compensation, just as victims of negligence ordinarily are in respect of damages that are not too remote.

Today, thanks to state laws that required all children to be immunized before attending school, there aren’t many unvaccinated adults. However, there are individuals who still believe that vaccinations are not effective and may cause adverse effects. Although public health history has demonstrated the immense benefit of vaccines, compulsory vaccination is still not free of controversy. Thus, some states allow medical, religious, and even philosophical exemptions from immunizations (“Disease Eradication”,

Public health is controversial in many cases because it requires balancing individual freedom and the greater good of society. Vaccinations can eliminate communicable diseases, but can be difficult to impose vaccinations upon individuals because of their sense of liberty. In this debate, there are those that support mandatory vaccinations to promote the health and wellbeing of the entire population and those that oppose mandatory vaccinations to protect themselves from any potential side effects. This controversy must be handled delicately by public health workers.

Scholars a the Harvard School of Public health developed a Public Health- Human Rights Impact Assessment Instrument to evaluate possible human right violations that occur when governments take action in the name of public health that limit individual right. They argue that such actions must be takes as a last resort and must only occur when they meet follow specific, stringent human rights conditions. Now, if we apply these eight core human right principles as they apply to the mandatory vaccination policies in the United States, there are major problems. With the first rule since mandatory vaccination represents a restriction of a right the UN charter would require a thick review of any public health policy. The second rule questions whether the current measures by the government are excessive. The third

“Vaccines are the most effective tool we have to prevent infectious diseases” (mandatory vaccinations) As a result, in the future, if the body is exposed to the same virus it will be able to create the antibodies, and fight it off. The government allows competent adults to decide whether they would like to vaccinate themselves or their children. However, in certain situations, there are mandatory vaccinations. Mandatory vaccinations are when, “Public health benefits overcome strong individual rights protections” (Orenstein, 100). This is mostly for diseases, that in the past have caused mass fatalities. In 1905 the supreme court ruled, in the case Jacobson vs. Massachusetts that vaccination requirements are within the power of the state if

On the other hand, with the baby girl’s case, the mother ultimately chose assisted suicide as she wished to stop nourishment and refused permission for surgery. The issue here violates the Baby Doe Law, which regardless of the parents’ wishes, sets specific guidelines for treatment of disabled newborns. Since the baby is not competent due to her age, the issue of informed consent is hard to deal with. This also deals with the issue of deciding for others because the mother must give informed consent and decide based off the well-being of her baby. This is another case of vulnerable population because the patient is a ten-month-old baby, and disabled as well. This means the child must not be neglected and be properly spoken for because she cannot speak for herself. Both cases have issues that overlap with each other and need to be broken down more to be understood properly.

Mandatory screening is morally required, for if a parent were to refuse to get their child tested, they not only put the child at risk for rare diseases, but also others at risk if the disease is communicable. This not only denies the child proper health, but places a burden on the other children in the event that they did possess a transferable disease. Making the treatment non mandatory allows for refusal by any family, which would burden society as well. By mandating the test, the government assumes the initial burden of the infant’s wellbeing, but ultimately reduces the amount of resources it would have to invest in the infant if the disease matures undetected. For this reason, the cost on either the family or the healthcare system would be much greater later on.

Further justification for mandatory vaccinations is logically discerned by reading John Stuart Mill’s and Arthur Okun’s views on rights. In On Liberty, Mill articulates that the only form of acceptable coercion is through the “harm principle” or “other regarding.” This translates as no one can or should want to harm their neighbor; therefore, society can willingly accept vaccination to protect others (Colgrove 2006, 4). Opponents argue that “harm principle” is not applicable because the only direct consequence is the side effects and harm a person receives from the vaccination (Colgrove 2006, 4), not the indirect effects such as a susceptible person obtaining the disease from lack of herd immunity. In response, I would argue, it is impossible to comprehend all the consequences our actions. Therefore, the government’s role is to prevent citizens from creating externalities that potentially hurt our neighbors.

The application of the hill immunity in Sullivan can ironically have negative rmifications for children who the public authorities owe a duty to, despite the courts supposed aim of ‘treating the child’s interests as paramount.’ This idea is explored by academia Frank Bates who disagrees with the concept of the hill immunity, highlighting that ‘the child’s relationship with a parent is damaged by an inept medical or bureaucratic policy, practice or

To fully understand the argument for mandated vaccinations, it is important to understand how different States define the word, “mandate,” and the Supreme Court’s reasoning behind upholding vaccination laws. Many would associate the word “mandate” with an order or command, or something that signifies requirement or inexcusableness, but States’