IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2021 - 36

Opinion
The study [3] seems to suggest that when it
comes to adherence with vaccination, outcomes are
improved when the pediatrician takes the time to
give parents the education that they need to make an
informed decision [3, p. e7]. This can be time-consuming;
however, in a study that surveyed over
7000 parents, 80% attributed their decision to vaccinate
to positive experiences with their primary care
provider [3, p. e7]. The key is not so much the information
conveyed, but how the information is conveyed.
Personalize the experience for parents as best
as reasonably possible, discuss the success of the vaccinations,
and provide real-life examples of children
who were sickened or worse when the disease could
have been prevented [3, p. e8].
State and Federal legislative bodies are concerned
about the significant number of those declining vaccination.
The revival of diseases such as measles has
the potential to create not only a public health concern
but economic cost as well [4]. Public health
goes so much deeper than washing hands and wearing
a mask. The policies that drive public health
are intertwined with, collective interests, individual
freedoms, and free enterprise [5, p. 571]. The resistance
to public health reform has been going on for
centuries. In 1848, landowners in Great Britain were
outraged when the government sought to install infrastructures
to manage drainage and waste. " English
people would prefer to take the chance of Cholera,
rather than be bullied into health " [5, p. 572]. It is at
times a slippery slope to determine what is necessary
to keep us safe while maintaining what allows us
to remain free. In a democratic society, such as the
United States, when it comes to public health, the
patient is not but one, it is the whole [6, pp. 144-145].
Public health " is what we, as a society, do collectively
to assure the conditions for people to be healthy "
[6, p. 145]. In a public health crisis, States are empowered
by Congress for implementation of the police
power authority to protect the overall health of the
public [6, p. 146]. Quarantine, contact tracing, and
immunization due to an infectious disease are proper
under this constitutional authority [6, p. 146].
At the turn of the 20th Century, outbreaks of smallpox
were still common, while the city of Cambridge
was seeking to protect its citizens from the disease by
vaccination [7, at 12]. Under a statute that allowed
cities in Massachusetts to enforce vaccination for
the good of public health, the city of Cambridge
issued a vaccination order. The defendant refused
36
to comply with the mandatory vaccination and was
charged with a criminal complaint [7, at 13]. The
defendant pleaded not guilty and requested a jury
instruction that would include that the order was
an infringement of his rights under the Constitution,
particularly, the 14th Amendment that provides that
" no state shall make or enforce any law abridging
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States, nor deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law,... " [7, at 14 (quoting
U.S. Const. amend XIV § 1)]. The Supreme Court
held that a State has the authority under the police
power to protect the public as a whole. This includes
various health laws and quarantine; however, the
powers initiated may not conflict with the Constitution
[7, at 25 (quoting U.S. Const. amend XIV § 1)].
The defendant in Jacobson asserted that mandatory
vaccination was a violation upon his body, his liberty,
and his personal decisions for health care. The
Supreme Court found that when it comes to the greater
good for all, personal liberty is not an absolute right
[7, at 26 (quoting U.S. Const. amend XIV § 1)]. " Society
based on the rule that each one is a law unto
himself would soon be confronted with disorder and
anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the
operation of [this] principle " [7, at 26 (quoting U.S.
Const. amend XIV § 1)]. The Court further went on
to state, " [e]ven liberty itself, the greatest of all rights,
is not unrestricted license to act according to one's
own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions
essential to the equal enjoyment of the same
right by others " [7, at 27 (quoting U.S. Const. amend
XIV § 1)].
Fast forward to the present day, over a century
later, and a pandemic arises with a myriad of executive
orders issued by States. It is no surprise that
in turn, Jacobson, which is still good law in regard
to public health emergencies, has been under
great scrutiny. The century-old Supreme Court
ruling has been battered and bruised through the
years and despite a subsequent case, Bayley's
Campground Inc. v Mills, Jacobson hangs on. In
Bayley's Campground several individuals and a
business entity sought a preliminary injunction
against executive orders initiated by the Governor
of Maine at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic
[8, at 27]. The executive order issued a mandatory
14-day quarantine to any visitors or residents who
had been traveling outside the State of Maine [8, at 25].
The order was issued pursuant to the growing
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2021
