Buy this Kindle book on Amazon on the Strange History of Medicine for only 99 cents
See a local listing for it here
This day in history: Jacobson v. Massachusetts was argued at the Supreme Court on this day in 1904, and was decided on February 20, 1905.
In 1904, a Lutheran minister, and Swedish immigrant Henning Jacobson, objected to a Cambridge, Massachusetts Board of Health law requiring all adults to get a second smallpox shot or pay a $5 dollar fine. Jacobson and his son had suffered severe reactions to previous smallpox shots and he logically argued that genetic predisposition placed him at higher risk for death or being injured if he was again given the shot.
The court ruled against Jacobson and affirmed Massachusetts's authority to impose mandatory smallpox shots.
Many bring up Jacobson v. Massachusetts in our present day to argue for forced medical treatments. There are some things about Jacobson v. Massachusetts that stand out as unique. Small pox was without question a far deadlier illness. Smallpox killed 30% of those infected. Smallpox medicine was also well researched at that time. Also, Henning Jacobson was only fined $5, he was not excluded from public life and he was not under threat of losing his livelihood.
Also, Jacobson v. Massachusetts led to what is often cited as one of the worst ever Supreme Court decisions: Buck V. Bell.
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Despite the changing attitudes in the coming decades regarding sterilization, the Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell.
In one of the most chilling statements in American jurisprudence, Holmes declared, "We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory [shot] is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes."
Holmes concluded his argument by citing Jacobson v. Massachusetts as a precedent for the decision, stating "Three generations of imbeciles are enough". The sole dissenter in the court, Justice Pierce Butler, a devout Catholic, did not write a dissenting opinion.
The effect of Buck v. Bell was to legitimize eugenic sterilization laws in the United States as a whole. While many states already had sterilization laws on their books, their use was erratic and effects practically non-existent in every state except for California. After Buck v. Bell, dozens of states added new sterilization statutes, or updated their constitutionally non-functional ones already enacted, with statutes which more closely mirrored the Virginia statute upheld by the Court.
"More than 60,000 Americans were involuntarily sterilized by public health officials before the barbaric medical practice was ended by most, but not all, states in the late 1940s...In 2005, professors of law and bioethics at Boston University wrote about how Jacobson v Massachusetts is no longer relevant. They said that, 'Jacobson was decided in 1905, when infectious diseases were the leading cause of death,' and when 'Few weapons existed to combat epidemics.... Preserving the public’s health in the 21st century requires preserving respect for personal liberty...Public health programs that are based on force are a relic of the 19th century; 21st-century public health depends on good science, good communication, and trust in public health officials to tell the truth.'" Source
See also: Ranking the 10 Worst Supreme Court Decisions of All-Time
No comments:
Post a Comment