Question #4
Regulation is an important tool used by our government entities that strongly impacts public health. It can be used to enforce new policies and initiatives in order to control risks or dangers to the public and can encourage improved behaviors within the population. There are legal foundations supporting and permitting the use of regulations in our government, and there are recognized times regulation can be justified.
Regulation has multiple legal foundations supporting its existence and use. The court case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts is arguably a cornerstone to public health’s regulatory and policy foundation. The court ruled that the government could justifiably infringe on an individual’s rights in order to benefit the larger population. In this case, it was related to mandatory vaccinations (Gostin, 2008; Turnock, 2012). This set a precedent deciding that the government can step in make requirements for the good of the entire population despite individuals’ rights and oppositions.
Another legal foundation supporting the use of regulations is found in the Constitution. The powers of taxation and the Commerce Clause allow the federal government to step in and address issues that fall into their jurisdiction, sometimes requiring regulations (Gostin, 2008). Gostin notes that the power to tax “is also the power to regulate risk behavior and influence health-promoting activities”, (Gostin 2008, pg 101). Another important clause in the Constitution is the Necessary and Proper Clause that gives Congress the ability to use “reasonable means” to carry out its powers (Gostin, 2008). This includes regulatory practices involving the public’s health.
The Supremacy Clause indicates that the federal government’s decisio...
... middle of paper ...
...ing may have on the greater population. Regulations on food safety prevent illness to the masses and testing of new chemicals and additives is important (although cumbersome and costly to manufacturers). Vaccinations have helped eradicate many diseases and increased life longevity over the past century (Gostin et al., 2003). Requiring these types of behaviors helps the public as a whole in the utilitarian sense. Regulations have arguably put a financial burden on businesses (Crain & Crain, 2010) but that’s why cost-benefit analyses are important. Benefits are not necessarily free and costs have to occur to achieve regulatory missions. Without regulations, financial burdens could be alleviated but the health of the masses and degradation of the environment would be in a more dire state. Regulation can be considered a necessary evil and great benefit to public health.
Regulations are created to protect the health and welfare of the public. The LCR was created to protect people from lead exposure from drinking water. While the USEPA creates the original regulation, states are tasked with establishing individual plans of action to help municipalities protect public health and welfare and be in compliance with mandated regulations.
The federal government does not have the explicit power to regulate public health so it bases its regulations on the federal government's exclusive ability to regulate interstate commerce. As an illustration of this power, there is a famous case - we will call it the fried chicken case - where the federal government was able to end a practice which forbid African Americans from buying food at a fried chicken restaurant a southern state in the 1960's. The Greyhound buses would stop at this restaurant for a break for the drivers. The federal government came in and said that the sale of chicken at the restaurant affected interstate commerce. Therefore, the federal government, and not the state, could control whether or not African Americans were allowed to eat there.
Moncrieff, A. R. (2013). The Individual Mandate as HealthCare Regulation: What the Obama Administration Should Have Said in NFIB Sebelius. America Journal of Law & Medicine,39, 539-572.
regulations - what's next? Health Matrix: Journal of Law and Medicine 2, no. 1 (Spring): 49- (22 p).
The question of what is the government’s role in regulating healthy and unhealthy behavior is one that would probably spark a debate every time. Originally, the role was to assist in regulating and ensure those that were unable to afford or obtain healthcare insurance for various reasons would be eligible for medical care. However, now it seems that politicians are not really concerned about what’s best for the citizens but woul...
Overall regulations were created to help society. I believe these regulations came along way to help organize society and keep the economy running efficiently and properly. These regulations better the people and the industries as a whole to American society.
The federal government acts in less-developed nations in a different manner in regards to minimum role in regulations regarding health care. This minimum role would lead the government to regulate safety at the regional or national level in which health care providers must be licensed and medications along with devices can be monitored (Tang, & Eisenberg, 2014). Federally this easy task can be regulated through monitoring devices, along with prec...
In the face of a potential H2N2 epidemic, New Jersey’s Health Commissioner enforced a statute requiring the vaccination of all public health professionals, school-age children, pregnant mothers, and asthmatics. The law also prohibits people outside these high-risk groups from receiving inoculations voluntarily until these classes of people are fully vaccinated. The states, as governments of general jurisdiction, have police powers to pass legislation designed to protect society’s health and safety. As such, New Jersey needs no specifically enumerated constitutional power to enact such legislation. Indeed, the Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts upheld a state law requiring mandatory immunization even in the face of concerns about vaccine safety and bodily integrity.
Each year 440,000 people die, in the United States alone, from the effects of cigarette smoking (American Cancer Society, 2004). As discussed by Scheraga & Calfee (1996) as early as the 1950’s the U.S. government has utilized several methods to curb the incidence of smoking, from fear advertising to published health warnings. Kao & Tremblay (1988) and Tremblay & Tremblay (1995) agreed that these early interventions by the U.S. government were instrumental in the diminution of the national demand for cigarettes in the United States. In more recent years, state governments have joined in the battle against smoking by introducing antismoking regulations.
Who ensures that companies are being responsible and handling consumer items with careful consideration? That is one of the many jobs of the Food and Drug administration, or FDA. It is an important federal agency that protects consumers and the environment. It was established in 1906, making it over a century old. The FDA is run by leadership roles such as the commissioner, deputy commissioners, and various other officers.
In this short paper I examine these common criticisms of the precautionary principle. In particular, I consider whether these criticisms are strong enough to warrant the abandon the precautionary principle as a regulatory tool for health and environmental policy.
Would you want to live in a country that dictated what you put in your body, and what you do in your own home? Since the 1980’s federal, state, and local governments, have passed numerous laws, which have had a direct impact on the sale of tobacco products. Increased tax rates, and advertisements restrictions, successfully manipulated the amount of product consumers buy. Unfortunately, through the help of public health polices, smoking has already been banned in most public places, airlines, and business, and now, arguments have been made to ban smoking completely from the United States (cdc).
For a long period of time, public smoking around hospitals has always been an issue. In the article for “South Dakota V. Dole” a question is asked concerning the hospital funding of states that do not enact public smoking bans, and whether or not to withhold five percent of the funding. I insist that the federal government should be able to withhold five percent of hospital funding from states that do not enact public smoking bans because smoking is hazardous to the health of patients who are in the hospital and to the smoker, it can be controlled, and is a waste of hospital resources.
Regulation is based on imposing restrictions as a way to make changes in the behaviour of individuals. The criminal code is a form of regulation that states what is considered acceptable and what is not. The criminal code could be used as a way of imposing a penalty on companies that use mercury to stop the release of mercury into rivers. The issue of mercury being released into rivers and causing serious illnesses to people is a major issue that sanctions should be imposed on companies that use mercury improperly. By imposing sanctions on these companies will place a penalty on the companies in order to stop the release of mercury into rivers. Furthermore, when it comes to the policy instrument of regulations there are two types which are: economic regulations and social regulations. Starting off with economic regulations, companies should be required to have a license to work in these factories. By requiring companies to have
Daynard.R., (2013). Regulatory Approaches to Ending Cigarette-Caused Death and Disease in the United States. Boston University School of Law; American Journal of Law and Medicine.