skip to content
Balancing individual rights versus collective good in public health enforcement.
ClosePreview this item
Checking...

Balancing individual rights versus collective good in public health enforcement.

Author: JD Blum Affiliation: Loyola University Chicago, USA.; N Talib
Edition/Format: Article Article : English
Publication:Medicine and law, 2006 Jun; 25(2): 273-81
Database:From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.
Other Databases: ArticleFirstBritish Library Serials
Summary:
This paper explores the balance between common good and individual liberty in the context of public health regulation. The issues are explored in reference to two areas of regulation, isolation and quarantine in the case of SARS, and the rights of parents to refuse mandatory childhood immunizations. In the case of SARS, the analysis explores the age old practice of isolation and quarantine, an important preventive  Read more...
Rating:

(not yet rated) 0 with reviews - Be the first.

More like this

 

&AllPage.SpinnerRetrieving;

Find a copy in the library

&AllPage.SpinnerRetrieving; Finding libraries that hold this item...

Details

Document Type: Article
All Authors / Contributors: JD Blum Affiliation: Loyola University Chicago, USA.; N Talib
ISSN:0723-1393
Language Note: English
Unique Identifier: 109944960
Awards:

Abstract:

This paper explores the balance between common good and individual liberty in the context of public health regulation. The issues are explored in reference to two areas of regulation, isolation and quarantine in the case of SARS, and the rights of parents to refuse mandatory childhood immunizations. In the case of SARS, the analysis explores the age old practice of isolation and quarantine, an important preventive measure with clear civil liberty implications. In reference to childhood immunization the paper considers the American controversy involving the refusal of parents to have their children vaccinated, fearing that mercury in vaccines will lead to autism. The analysis explores the US Supreme Court case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts which 100 years ago established a four part test for evaluating claims of individuals that government public health authorities were infringing on their liberty interests. The paper endorses the four elements of necessity, reasonableness, proportionality, and harm avoidance identified in Jacobson, but calls for a more rigorous scientific evaluation to accompany this traditional test.

Reviews

User-contributed reviews
Retrieving GoodReads reviews...
Retrieving DOGObooks reviews...

Tags

All user tags (1)

View most popular tags as: tag list | tag cloud

Confirm this request

You may have already requested this item. Please select Ok if you would like to proceed with this request anyway.

Close Window

Please sign in to WorldCat 

Don't have an account? You can easily create a free account.