Introduction
The administrative decree is a subdivision of law that governs the actions of governmental agencies. Public health is also comprehensive in the agencies that fall under the decision-making branch of the government that is the executive. The section of the administrative branch deals with the rules and regulations that are passed forth by agencies. Administrative law is very extensive in public law and touches on a variety of issues on public health law. The paper discusses administrative law and its extensive towards public health.
Discussion
All courts in the United States are familiar with the importance of allowing public agencies to do their job. Congressional representatives often weaken public health laws due to the notion that the laws should be moderated to march their needs. The administrative law is witnessed on many occasions in matters of public health for example the actions of the 1978 fever plague. The disease had raged yearly in the United States and bureaucrats in the country had not come up with measures to restrain it. Consequently, when the epidemic hit in the year 1978 there was a public chorus of disapproval since the authorities did not have the right measures to control the insurrectionary disease. The then governor of Pennsylvania proclaimed that there should not be any contact between the people of Philadelphia and New York. This example serves as a way to show to what degree the law can overhang public health. In the constitution, the central law protects public health in relation to the profit-making power that government has. Public health is amongst the primary health laws that were passed by the legislature. The state and local government also recognize public health and it was given the first administration function (Turnock, 2009, p. 123).
The board of health is also recognized amongst one of the first lawmaking agencies. The government is divided into three chief branches. They include the Congress, Courts and Executive Branch. These arms deal with public health in dissimilar ways. The executive has subdivision agencies that do its enforcement and regulation making. The public health agency is an archetypal example of a bureau under the public law that has its own sovereignty at the state and federal level (Schneider, 2010, p. 406). The director or board that is answerable to the executive runs an independent agency. At the federal level, the agency is independent and has a board of health that tries to protect it from political influence.
Most states have separate executive branches that have different elected officials. The branches appoint an attorney general who runs the state legal office and a governor who runs the other agencies including the health agency. A board of health and not the governor’s office runs state and health departments directly. In a state where only the attorney general can provide legal services, the board of governors cannot make its own legal decisions but the attorney general’s office approves of this. Agency vis-à-vis the public health outfit carries out its own opinionated policy. The elementary control over any agency is through appointment. A self-regulating agency like public health is cut off from direct political management by supporting action. They are therefore answerable to a board or commission that is appointed by the executive (Tulchinsky & Varavikova, 2009, p. 406).
The members of this board have a legal occupancy of five years and are only consumable when it expires. At the federal level, the Securities and Exchange Commission becomes an independent body. The body puts into practice the act of public health and protects it from political demands that can be put on the agency through the executive. Some state and health officers work for the board of health and this provides bigger protection from political manipulation. Although agencies are part of the executive, the elected representatives fund them. This undermines their autonomy and can lead to political interference through financial support. The bench in many instances operates as a guard to the agency since it continuously reminds people who are challenging them to focus on alterations through the legislature.
Public health agencies face two political threats. The first one is the demand to adjust public health policy to please opinionated schemes. These policies are normally not based on first-class public health doctrines. A significant and up-to-date public health directive in the news media is the refusal by many states to do proper contact tracing and reporting of HIV owing to the lobbying by many privacy advocates. The other example of a contemporary public health rule that is politically motivated is the rule passed by the government to compel equality in the treatment of mental and substance use disorders. This undermines the sovereignty of public health by administrative law. The second threat is the pressure by the executive and legislature in keeping health matters out of the media. This reduces the demands of increasing taxes and redirecting them to public health services (Schneider, 2010, p. 123).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the independence of public health in relation to administrative law is varied. Because the public health agency relies on the administrative body for a number of financial and legal support and as a result, it can always be manipulated. However, the agency is controlled by a board of directors that have a legal tenure hence they can exercise their duties independently. Therefore, the operations of the public health committee are always limited but independent.
References
Schneider, M.-J. (2010). Introduction to Public Health. Massachusetts: Introduction to Public Health.
Tulchinsky, T. H., & Varavikova, E. (2009). The new public health. New York City: Academic Press.
Turnock, B. J. (2009). Public health: what it is and how it works. Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett Learning.