Public health is a paramount issue in the United States. It has been increasingly difficult to juggle this significant problem with all the other issues that are circulating our country. One of the key problems with public health law is that there is a constant tug of war between the two main political parties throughout each governmental branch. Therefore, a legislature that would have an actual impact is usually in the throes of a deadlock, never to be passed. However, in terms of the protection of our populous, there have been some laws that serve as jumping-off points until the polarization of the political parties throughout the governing branches subsides.
One law, in particular, that is just is the Order for Medical Examination and Specimen Collection. This law, which is from the database of the CDC or Center for Disease Control, is focused on the protection of the surrounding inhabitants of a certain state. In this certain example, we focus on New Hampshire. The Attorney General passed this law in 2003. “As part of this medical examination, you will be required to produce such specimens as are determined by medical personnel to be necessary to determine the presence of a communicable disease.” (CDC).
Now I find this to be an effective law for the most part, although there are various negative aspects about it as well. Firstly, it is not a dictatorial movement by our government. In many states, laws are passed that act as commands that force individuals, their partners and spouses, and even their children to get vaccines. Often these treatments cause terrible side effects. “Recently in Florida, two teens from the same family came down with serious vaccine injuries from Gardasil vaccinations. That’s not unusual.” (Fassa, 2010, p. 1).
If there is no acceptance and action in regard to this legislature, people can be persecuted by the law. The weakness in this law is that these citizens have not contracted the actual disease and it seems as if the government is attempting to control their every move.
The way the aforementioned law differs from this type of legislature is that when an individual is recognized as having and portraying symptoms that are related to a disease that could have disastrous consequences, they must submit to testing for the betterment of those around them. One could argue that the laws that are passed that require certain vaccines act in the same way, but it is a hasty and commanding requirement that goes against much of the freedom promised in our Constitution. We must uphold the ideals of our forefathers in every situation because the United States must be consistent with its values.
The law that was described prior does a fantastic job of giving the United States’ citizens freedom but allows for the protection of our population. Human rights are extremely significant as a whole, but when dealing with the safety of an abundant population, those rights may have to be sacrificed for their safety. This legislature balances both of these priorities effectively. Granted, as previously stated, this law has flaws. There is an issue of profiling, although unfortunate occurs daily. There are different groups of people that have been stereotypically tied down to disease for years, and sadly many believe this typecasting to be true, which is it is not.
On the positive side, when in comparison to a dictatorial law that would in effect command-specific groups to get vaccines, we can see that the Order for Medical Examination and Specimen Collection in its true form does not promote prejudice, whereas the demand for a vaccine does. When a government instructs specific individuals to get medical treatment, suspicions arise and due to ignorance stereotypes are given. The Order for Medical Examination and Specimen Collection was created for the protection of populations, and at its core promotes freedom of the individual.
References
CDC. (2012) Infectious Disease. Web.
Fassa, P. (2010). HPV vaccinations are unnecessary and harmful. Natural News. Web.