Fundamental health law - Essay Example

Fundamental health law affiliation Fundamental health law Over the past half-decade, the viral gastroenteritis that is caused by norovirus has caused several epidemics in the state of South Caledonia; people have become ill with symptom of fever, nausea, diarrhea, and even vomiting. However, only two lives have been reported lost due to the epidemics caused by this virus. As a result, the government of the United States licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration stated that each and every person above the age of three years was required to be vaccinated against the virus. Mr. Russell is a resident of thus state who does not wish to go ahead with the vaccination; this is despite the fact that he is medically fit for the vaccine. Mr. Russell wants to go ahead and sue the state that giving him the vaccine against his will is a complete violation of his personal autonomy under the 14th amendment of the constitution of the United States. Mr. Russell has a valid argument in his wish to file for a case against the state, despite the fact that the U.

S constitution does not have any direct rights to privacy, however one is entitled to a right of privacy under the personal autonomy, an individual is allowed to choose whether to take part in precise activities, or subject themselves to particular acts. This precise personal autonomy is a liberty that is safeguarded by the due process clause of the 14th amendment; this liberty is defined in a general and narrow way whereby one is entitled to the rights of privacy in the family, child rearing ad other social activities.

With this in mind, it is legal for Mr. Russell to refuse to be vaccinated. A good references case to why Mr. Russell have a viable argument in court the Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905 at the United States .Supreme Court. The implication of the Jacobson v. Massachusetts in relation to the one of Mr. Russell’s vs. the State is the rights to pressure citizens in circumstances that are not applicable. The case at hand was whether the state had the right to force Mr. Jacobson to receive a vaccination.

This is after a law had been passed in the Massachusetts sin the year 1902 that required all people who had not received any vaccination for the last five years to receive one, failure to that would result to a fine. Jacobson declined to this order and the fine as well and filed for a case against the state, his argument was the state invaded on his personal autonomy. The Supreme Court in Massachusetts ruled in favor of the state, this was because despite the legal personal autonomy rights that an individual has, failure to take the vaccine could pose as a health risk o the people around it, therefore, accepting to take the vaccine is not an individual choice as the public is also involved.

There are more advantages that would have been achieved to the people around him if he would have taken the vaccine just like anybody else; this is a typical situation whereby the state has the power to force citizen to do things that are beyond their rights with the objective of protecting the common good. With this reference, Mr. Russell has a valid argument in his case, his argument being based on the right of personal liberty based in the 14th amendment to of the United States’ constitution.

ReferencesMike, N. (2010). Handbook of public protection. New York: Diane publishers