The Legacy of Jacobson V. Massachusetts on Public Health
American Military University
The Legacy of Jacobson v. Massachusetts on Public Health
PBHE426
Professor Lucas
February 19, 2012
Abstract
In the 1905 Supreme Court case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the court ruled that the state had the right to compromise a person’s right to due process in the name of the common good of society. This case was controversial because it brings up a question of whether or not the ruling was ethical. More than one hundred years later, the ruling still plays a role in the authority of public health officials and has been stated as the most influential case for public health thus far. In today’s law the Jacobson ruling can be seen in smoking bans across the nation, as well as seatbelt and helmet laws. The most influential result of the case is the power of the government to isolate or quarantine a person so as not to further spread a communicable disease.
The Legacy of Jacobson v. Massachusetts on Public Health Reverend Henning Jacobson was living in a Boston suburb in the early twentieth century. When a smallpox outbreak occurred, the board of health of the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts imposed a mandate that all persons must become vaccinated. When Jacobson failed to comply, he was ordered to pay a fine. He, and three other men, decided the mandate was in violation of their 14th amendment rights and decided to take the matter to court. After failing to win the case in three lower courts, Jacobson took his case to the Federal Supreme Court. The verdict of Jacobson was a 7-2 vote in favor of the state. This set a precedent that would be used for over one hundred years after the initial case. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, although controversial, has proven to be beneficial to public health authority over the last century. In and around the early 1900s, smallpox was endemic in the United States. There were periods of epidemic that took the lives of many people. If people were lucky enough to survive the
The Legacy of Jacobson v. Massachusetts on Public Health
PBHE426
Professor Lucas
February 19, 2012
Abstract
In the 1905 Supreme Court case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the court ruled that the state had the right to compromise a person’s right to due process in the name of the common good of society. This case was controversial because it brings up a question of whether or not the ruling was ethical. More than one hundred years later, the ruling still plays a role in the authority of public health officials and has been stated as the most influential case for public health thus far. In today’s law the Jacobson ruling can be seen in smoking bans across the nation, as well as seatbelt and helmet laws. The most influential result of the case is the power of the government to isolate or quarantine a person so as not to further spread a communicable disease.
The Legacy of Jacobson v. Massachusetts on Public Health Reverend Henning Jacobson was living in a Boston suburb in the early twentieth century. When a smallpox outbreak occurred, the board of health of the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts imposed a mandate that all persons must become vaccinated. When Jacobson failed to comply, he was ordered to pay a fine. He, and three other men, decided the mandate was in violation of their 14th amendment rights and decided to take the matter to court. After failing to win the case in three lower courts, Jacobson took his case to the Federal Supreme Court. The verdict of Jacobson was a 7-2 vote in favor of the state. This set a precedent that would be used for over one hundred years after the initial case. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, although controversial, has proven to be beneficial to public health authority over the last century. In and around the early 1900s, smallpox was endemic in the United States. There were periods of epidemic that took the lives of many people. If people were lucky enough to survive the
References: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.) Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Public Health Law: Perspectives in 2005. Retrieved from http://www2a.cdc.gov/phlp/jacobson/pdfs/public_health_guide.pdf. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Questions and Answers on the Executive Order Adding Potentially Pandemic Influenza Viruses to the List of Quarantinable Diseases. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/qa- executive-order-pandemic-list-quarantinable-diseases.html. Colgrove, J., & Bayer, R. (2005). The Legacy of Jacobson v Massachusetts. American Journal Of Public Health, 95(4), 571-576. Darr, K. (2005). Ethics in Health Services Management. Baltimore: Health Professions Press, Inc. Gostin, L. O. (2005). Jacobson v Massachusetts at 100 Years: Police Power and Civil Liberties in Tension. American Journal Of Public Health, 95(4), 576-581. Primary Documents in American History. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html. Toward a twenty-first-century Jacobson v. Massachusetts. (2008). Harvard Law Review, 121(7), 1820-1841.