In defense of public health law, Lawrence O. Gostin argues for more spending on public health resources. He finds that over the course of history, society has promoted individualism at the expense of public health services (374). Gostin uses the recent threats of bioterrorism as a reason why we should be more concerned with introducing more stringent and uniform state and local public health laws. The article might have held even more weight had Gostin referenced the 1989 public health fiasco concerning the Reston virus. Today’s film industry seems to be in love with movie plots featuring deadly viruses that lead to quarantine and panic; however, these fictional tales we often see only in the movies do have some grounding in reality. Richard Preston, a writer for the New Yorker and best-selling novelist, knows all too well about the real possibility of viral outbreak in the U.S. In 1992, Preston published an article about the Reston virus scare, which originated in Reston, Virginia. The true story stems from disease research on primates. Monkeys are imported to the U.S. from all over the world and are lab testers for potential cures to deadly viruses. In 1989, a shipment of macaque monkeys was moved from the Philippines into the U.S., and strangely many of them began to die (62-65). After a series of misdiagnoses of what was affecting the monkeys, researchers came across a strain of Ebola that had never been seen before (73). This caused immediate panic within the facility as it was yet unknown how the discovered strain of Ebola would affect humans. Eventually it was found that while the virus was harmful to monkeys, it could not harm humans, though it can successfully reproduce in the human body (79). Overall though, Preston’s article shows the very real potential of fatal viruses making their way into the U.S.
After the outbreak of the Reston virus, the Institute of Medicine published a paper about emerging infections and the growing threat of mutant bacteria (Preston, 80). Seeing how the Ebola virus and many other viruses cause fatalities worldwide should pressure the U.S. and individual states into taking greater care about health-scare preparedness. As Preston states in his article, “the presence of international airports puts every virus on earth within a day’s flying time of the U.S.” (62). Just the existence of a potential for outbreak means we should be doing everything that we can to prevent it, as well as to prepare for it. As Gostin states in his piece, it is not about passing legislation that will necessarily work, but rather passing legislation that is stronger, better, and more effective than what we currently have (378).This means having to sacrifice some personal rights in the state of a public emergency. Without these precautions, we actually threaten the exercise of autonomy, as well as endanger human beings. So, it might be necessary to give up what we think of as individual rights in times of emergency, for the greater good of protecting future autonomy and individual rights.
Works Cited
Gostin, L.O. “Public Health Law in an Age of Terrorism: Rethinking Individual Rights and Common Goods.” Arguing About Bioethics. London: Routledge, 2012. 374-384. Print.
Preston, Richard. “Crisis in the Hot Zone.” The New Yorker. Oct. 26, 1992. 58-81.
I agree with your argument that we need to sacrifice some individual rights for the greater good. This directly relates to the discussion in class regarding vaccinations and the free-rider effect. Since some people believe vaccinations can cause death and mental problems, they refuse to vaccinate their children, which puts society at a greater risk for contracting the disease the child is susceptible to. The parent’s logic is usually that everyone else is vaccinated so my child should be fine, but this truly does put other people at risk. Additionally, if everyone took up the free-rider logic, then no one would be safe.
Also, your epidemic examples remind me of the movie Outbreak, where the Ebola virus spread rapidly and killed large amounts of people in Cedar Creek, California. In this case there needed to be stricter health laws in order to prevent the spread of disease. This outbreak resulted in a quarantine of the area, which interfered with individual’s autonomy; however in emergency situations the health of the people should be the priority, not the autonomy of individuals.
Works Cited:
1.)”Outbreak (film).” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 25 Mar. 2014. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. .
It’s scary to think about the fact that all diseases are within a single day’s flight of the US. We often feel comfortable with the idea that most communicable diseases that affect many countries are a world away from us in the US. But, like you said, international airports are a gateway for the transportation of any and all diseases. When traveling internationally, all passengers must go through customs to try and control who and what enters the country. However, custom control, like airport security, is highly variable from country to country. Although certain foods are not permitted in and out of countries in an effort to control spread of certain diseases, there is no way to prevent hidden viruses from entering a country. It makes me wonder if some day in the future, if public health issues become a bigger concern, a procedure of sterilization/testing upon entering a country will be proposed. With the constant progress of technology and medicine, it does not seem too far fetched to imagine technology that is able to detect viruses/bacteria on people, animals, products or just about anything that is entering a country, in an effort to control the spread of disease. Screening of this type would bring with it a whole bunch of ethical questions.
I’m intrigued by the idea that we could use technology to detect viruses and bacteria on things entering the country. Assuming that we could, I wonder what the legal justification would be. Of course, there’s the immediate issue of an individual having to sacrifice for the benefit of the group, which we have been discussing in class. I wonder if the legal basis would be something like “An individual does not own a bacteria that is within them. Thus, privacy laws cannot apply to screening for bacteria.” Of course, this seems to open up a can of worms. The same line of reasoning could be applied to hundreds of things that we think of as “ours” (e.g. hair). Like we saw with laws about cloning, it’s really easy to say “we don’t like that”, but it seems to be hard to actually give a legal reason why we should forbid (or allow) something.
I like the way in which you used a very real example to illustrate the importance of updated public health laws. By the very nature of public health, there will be individual rights sacrificed; however, I would much rather live to see another day than protect a product that my business is heavily invested in.
As the title of your post implies: what is the importance of individual rights if you won’t live another day to express those rights? Public health should be a much bigger priority to citizens than what it is currently. Only then will we be successful in getting politicians to delegate more funds to an area in which we need them the most. You may be right–perhaps the answer to all of this is the film industry. Our future is in the hands of zombie flicks and the Planet of the Apes series…
I think Gostin made a very important point when he says that people were criticizing MSEHPA because it wasn’t a perfect legislative Act, but the issue is not whether it provides an ideal solution to the problem, but a solution that is better than the current one (378). Which is his opinion was essentially non-existent. I think this is a common criticism of proposed legislation, and I’ve never really thought about it as Gostin stated. The simple fact that it is better than current plans, makes it a great plan.
I think you make a good point about Public Health policy suffering historically because of a prioritizing of individualism. Public Health is a tough field in this sense because it really does require you to overlook individuals and focus solely on what’s best for the public, or the majority of individuals. Inevitably some people are going to lose out and that’s always going to make Public Health policy unattractive.
You are absolutely right that for the greater good, it is sometimes necessary to give up, our so called, individual rights. Since the public health first began as an organized discipline, its aim has always been to improve the health of populations rather than of individuals. However, it frequently faces situations where it is blamed for disregarding individual freedoms in ethical ways. It makes it difficult for both the government and the public health sectors to implement programs because they are under constant pressure of infringing individual liberties. I really think that we ought to work together to protect each other or we will all suffer the consequences because we live in a globalized society; problems of one community threatens the entire world. As World Health Organiztion’s director general Dr. Gro Harlem Bruntland states, “in a globalized world, [with disease such as AIDS and West Nile virus] we all swim in a single microbial sea.”
Your first story on potential struck me as forgiving- the stories we see displayed in movies usually are over-dramatized but are most definitely rooted in reality! There is a reason they are so scary in a way that can not be explained by the average viewer- this stems out of how uncanny they are and reminiscent of our own reality. Historically, trends in movies follow developments of wars and new issues in science. The sixties and seventies displayed a spike in sci-fi films that had to do with nuclear war and space, which follows the the lunar landing and Cold War, and the dramatic action films following 9/11 reach the audience with situations of battles surrounding international relations and helplessness felt while in hard situations abroad. These films seemed relevant although far from the actions that subconsciously inspired them. I think it would be interesting to discuss how we express ourselves based on individual concerns, and how this impacts those around us. This can even be tied to celebrities endorsing anti-vaccine campaigns- they may be abusing their power when influencing individual decisions on the health of admirers.
you’re really a excellent webmaster. The web site loading pace is amazing.
It sort of feels that you are doing any distinctive trick.
Moreover, The contents are masterwork. you have done
a great job in this matter!
Hello mates, how is everything, and what you desire to say on the topic
of this post, in my view its genuinely remarkable designed for me.