This week we learned about mandatory vaccines. First we started off with Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1905), A Massachusetts legislation requiring smallpox vaccinations for all students was being challenged in this case. Cambridge, Massachusetts resident Henning Jacobson objected to his child receiving a vaccination because of his personal views and history of negative vaccination reactions. After receiving a $5 fine (about $150 in today's currency) for breaking the law, he filed a constitutional rights complaint. The main question was whether Jacobson's right to individual liberty under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment was violated by the Massachusetts vaccine requirement. Jacobson claimed that because the law restricted his bodily autonomy and personal freedom, it was unconstitutional. In a 7-2 ruling, the US Supreme Court maintained the Massachusetts statute. The Court decided that vaccination laws might be enforced by the state for the protection of public health and safety. After this case we went into Zucht v. King, In this case, a municipal San Antonio, Texas, vaccination policy was being enforced. The regulation mandated that all students enrolled in public schools receive a smallpox vaccination. The petitioner, Eula Zucht, contested this requirement when her child was turned away from a public school due to a lack of vaccinations. According to Zucht, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by the ordinance. The main question was whether the local vaccine law violated equal protection or individual liberty, and if so, whether it was illegal. In a majority ruling, the US Supreme Court maintained the vaccination ordinance. The Court decided that, as a fair use of its police powers, the local government was entitled to enforce such health requirements. The last case we talked about was Boone v. Boozman (2002), The case included a challenge to a state legislation in Arkansas requiring vaccinations against chickenpox and other infections for all pupils attending public schools. The plaintiffs claimed that the statute infringed upon their right to freedom of religion. These included a number of parents and pupils. They said that the vaccine mandate went against their religious and personal convictions. The main question was whether the plaintiffs' rights under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, which safeguards religious freedom, were violated by the vaccination requirement in Arkansas. The state's vaccination requirement was maintained by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The plaintiffs' constitutional rights were not violated, the court determined in ruling on the vaccination obligation.
What I found interesting this week was how the deinstitutionalization movement significantly changed the landscape of mental healthcare, moving away from a large institution-dominated approach and toward one that prioritizes community-based support. This paper's examination of the historical background and the unforeseen ramifications of this big change is among its most interesting features. The movement started out intending to better the treatment that people with mental illness received, and it also aimed to eliminate the harsh environments that were prevalent in many institutions from the early 20th century. The paper emphasizes how popular culture's depiction of these facilities often linked to terror and neglect was a major factor in influencing public opinion and changing laws. The legislative initiatives aimed to provide sufficient community resources, most notably through the Community Mental Health Act of 1963. However, many people were left without the required sup
Comments
Post a Comment