Abstract
The aim of public health is to bring about the greatest health benefits for the greatest number of people. But to what extent can the government lawfully impede on the liberties of its citizens in order to serve the common good? In this paper I will compare and contrast the Jacobson v. Massachusetts 1905 case with the Affordable Care Act of 2010. In both cases, individual autonomy, government intervention, social justice, and protection of individual rights were very important issues and will be discussed.
Keywords: Ethics, Law, Individual Rights, Public Health
Jacobson v. Massachusetts and the Affordable Care Act 2010
When it comes to most public health actions, the government will act to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. Jacobson v Massachusetts of 1905 raised questions about the power of state government to protect the public’s health and the Constitution’s protection of personal liberty. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 requires U.S. citizens to have health insurance otherwise a tax penalty will be imposed. In both cases, individual autonomy, government intervention, social justice, and protection of individual rights are very…show more content… The case set an example for the valuing of public health over individual liberties when the two come into conflict and had to weigh society’s interest in health versus an individual’s freedom under the law. Gostin touches on a social-compact theory that revolves around social welfare and regulating police power. “Regarding this philosophy, there are four standards displayed by Jacobson v Massachusetts: necessity, reasonable means, proportionality, and harm avoidance” (Gostin, 2005). With regards to proportionality, he states how fairness must be respected (otherwise it is unconstitutional) and because Jacobson mandated immunizations for all of the residents of Cambridge, fairness was never a
