The Ethics Of Health Ethics

Along the same idea, the justices also stated that the rights of the people are only applicable when they go along with the common good. Jacobson was attempting to exercise his rights that could have led to potential harm to others. The Court also stated in the ruling that the common good “applies to the right of society to protect itself from epidemics and that legislative bodies have authority to choose the means toward that end” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.). The final statement in the ruling of Jacobson v. Massachusetts was that the police power had to adhere to four standards to determine if the 14th amendment is void when it comes to the good of public health. First, the issue, which in this case was vaccination, has to be a necessary measure to aid officials in stopping a disease outbreak. Second, the issue has to be reasonable and lead to desirable results. The third standard is whatever the public health officials propose, the benefit must outweigh the hassle to citizens. And finally, the issue should follow the ethical principle of nonmaleficence and should not cause harm to anyone.

The healthcare system underwent reformation in 2010 in the form of The Affordable Care Act. The main goal of the ACA was to extend health care throughout the nation; irrespective of this intention, some people regard the Affordable Care Act as being paternalistic. Chapter 9 covers the issue of how ethical the imposition of new restrictions on people by the ACA is.

Over one hundred years removed from this decision, this case is still discussed and analyzed in scholarly works, indicating the sustained relevance of the tensions and conflicts. The U.S. Supreme Court cited this case 69 times through 2004 (5). In addition to granting compulsory vaccination at the state level, Jacobson v. Massachusetts has been used to justify public health initiatives ranging from quarantine of diseased individuals to mandatory motorcycle helmet laws (6). Despite establishing a legal precedent for mandatory vaccinations, resistance to government required vaccination persists, often from ideological, cultural, or religious beliefs, and many states have amended the vaccination laws to allow for exemptions (6). It is therefore important for public health to recognize its powers are not only a legal action, but also a moral obligation to consider individual preferences.

The human body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, lived in by God, and died for by Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 6:19, New International Version). The Bible teaches us that we should care for our body because it is a gift from God. In order to protect the human vessel, all persons should receive affordable health care of the highest quality. The policies and ethics of a nation play a major role in determining whether a government can provide said care (Nash et al., 2016). The Health Policy and Ethics class at Liberty University (NURS 5011) provided an excellent overview of how important the legislative and political process is to protecting the health of every citizen of the United States.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts is viewed as the seminal case regarding state’s or municipality’s authority to institute a mandatory vaccination program as an exercise of its police powers.

In the United States, the Supreme Court ruled in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) that states could “compel vaccination for the common good.” Historically, the safeguarding of the public health has been the chief responsibility of state and local governments. The authority to enact laws applicable to the safety of the public health originates from the state 's general police powers. With regard to communicable disease outbreaks, these powers may encompass the enactment of compulsory inoculation laws. Although present-day U.S. policies typically oblige children receive vaccinations before entering school, many states permit exemptions due to religious, personal, philosophical or health reasons. Still there is also Federal jurisdiction over public health issues as well.

Care Ethics (Feminist Ethics) is the importance of caring relationships in life whether its human or animal related. The main goal of care ethics is to maintain and promote caring relationships. Care ethics involves helping both yourself and the world around you. It gives you the motivation to care for others beside yourself. Care ethics according to the article is more a “general approach” than a theory in regards to other ethical practices. The goal of care ethics is to show that women have the same equal rights as men and that they both have freedoms of their own. This is important as this is helping to address equality among the human race. Care ethics as a whole revolves around emotions.

Nurses are constantly challenged by changes which occur in their practice environment and are under the influence of internal or external factors. Due to the increased complexity of the health system, nowadays nurses are faced with ethical and legal decisions and often come across dilemmas regarding patient care. From this perspective a good question to be raised would be whether or not nurses have the necessary background, knowledge and skills to make appropriate legal and ethical decisions. Even though most nursing programs cover the ethical and moral issues in health care, it is questionable if new nurses have the depth of knowledge and understanding of these issues and apply them in their practice

One, is distributive justice. Burdens and benefits are not equally distributed when select individuals within a population choose to not get vaccinated. This exercise of autonomy (when not medically indicated) conflicts with the harm principle by placing the health of others in danger. While some anti-vaxxers frame mandatory vaccinations as a liberty issue, the Court ruled in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), that mandatory vaccination laws are “a legitimate exercise of a state’s police power to protect the public health and safety of its citizens” and is not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty. Furthermore, mandatory vaccinations can be justified by utilitarianism. Vaccinating those who are capable of receiving vaccinations maximizes utility by promoting the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people – vaccines are a social good. In assessing the risks and benefits of vaccinations, the good (i.e., beneficence) produced by vaccinations, outweighs the

When it comes to the ethic of public health and medical health, they hold two totally different definitions. The ethics of public health is when the focus is more on the freedoms of privacy and actions, as long as they do not harm others.“In public health ethics, autonomy, the right of privacy, and freedom of action are recognized in so far as they do not result in harm to others” (Williams & Torrens, 2008). When considering medical ethics the focus on the concerns of individuals and their liberties and freedom of choice. “In Medical ethics, the concern is with privacy individual liberty, freedom of choice, and self-control of the individual” (Williams & Torrens, 2008). Two examples of codified ethical standard of public health is in an

Ethical Codes are in use today by many organizations to clearly establish their values and provide a procedure if a code violation occurs. Medical ethics began as a professional code for physicians and has now expanded and includes a variety of health care professions and health care organizations. The growth of medical knowledge and technology have grown so have the concerns that ethical standards and issues facing our society today may be compromised or not appropriately addressed (Littleton et al., 2010).

Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)). The court stated that it was a common belief among physicians that vaccines were a harmless method of effectively preventing the spread of disease (Goodwin, Chemerinsky 2016). Seeing no harm in vaccines and wanting to prevent outbreaks such as smallpox, the Supreme Court easily decided that the rights of an individual could be suspended if the reason being in the “interest of the common good” (Beltz, 2015). No one person should be able to jeopardize the community because of a personal decision. The final decision of the court allowed each individual states to make their own laws regarding exemptions from vaccinations, but not forcing them to provide exemptions (Beltz, 2015). The ruling also implied that starting mass compulsory vaccinations could only be done if an immediate threat of an epidemic could be identified (Goodwin, Chemerinsky 2016). Being that Jacobson v. Massachusetts was the first Supreme Court case pertaining to compulsory vaccinations, this case has acted as precedent for many similar cases following (Beltz, 2015). Many opponents of the rulings of this case introduce the argument that since Jacobson v. Massachusetts was decided more than one hundred years ago, that the case no longer is relevant with the technological and medical advances that are utilized in today’s society (Mariner, 2005). During the time period of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, many differences with today’s society present themselves. The Federal

With a growing epidemic of obesity in America, some states and lawmakers have resorted to taking unconventional measures in order to counter the growing issue. Many legislators are debating the effectiveness of a “fat tax” would be on limiting the consumption of soda, high fat foods, and high sugar foods, and ultimately reducing the rate of morbidity and mortality due to obesity. The idea is that long term consumption of high fat, high sugar foods and drinks lead to many health problems, so making them more expensive and less accessible should decrease the health issues related to their consumption.

In the last three decades HIV/ AIDS has become the one of the most notorious and widely spread diseases in the modern world. Its discovery in the late seventies prompted worldwide concern. The one thing that has become the most bothersome thing about the HIV/ AIDS epidemic is prevention. Prevention or stopping the transmission of the diseases is hindered by factors such as: denial or non-acceptance by infected persons, unsafe sex, and non-disclosure by infected persons to their at risk sexual partner(s). According to Alghazo, Upton, and Cioe (2011):

The course Health Care Ethics was a rather revealing study that highlighted many actions in the provision of health care which would have otherwise gone unattended to. The course has helped prepare me and deepened my understanding of ethical issues and their relevance in my job as a future healthcare administrator. It has been a great experience going through the course as it has greatly impacted my understanding and outlook in the healthcare industry.