Introduction
The case study involves a 21-year-old male student, Joseph Shoe, who is studying abroad in China for the summer. A case of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is detected in Canada and is traced back to China. The state of Illinois decided that a newly produced vaccine for SARS is to be administered to anyone who has traveled to China. This new vaccination is approved and proven to be effective by the health community, although, a small number of individuals in the general population feel the vaccination would be ineffective in avoiding the spread of SARS. According to the (World Health Organization, 2017) SARS has a 14-15% case mortality. This information needs to be considered in the context of a possible vaccine to prevent SARS. Further, some community members, including Mr. Shoe, are concerned with the possible injurious side effects. Mr. Shoe believes that the required vaccination violates his 14th Amendment rights. The conclusive evidence throughout this case study will indicate that vaccines are a safe and effective way to prevent the spread of disease. Moreover, Mr. Shoe’s liberty or due process argument is unenforceable due to police power and the ruling on Jacobson v. Massachusetts.
Vaccinations
Vaccines are the most effective tool we have that helps prevent infectious disease. A vaccine is “a …show more content…
Massachusetts, the use of police power was utilized for the greater good of society. This case mirrors Mr. Shoe’s claim that the mandatory vaccination violates his 14th Amendment rights. Additionally, in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the United States Supreme Court found that that involuntary vaccination did not violate Jacobson’s individual liberties because an individual is required to give up some personal freedom in exchange for the benefits of being in a civilized society. Mr. Shoe must realize certain liberties are curtailed if there is a clear and present public health