Mandatory Vaccination in the United States: A Past and Present Examination of Jacobson v Massachusetts

In the 7 to 2 ruling, the prime minister decided that the safety and health of Massachusetts citizens were better than individual rights, and Massachusetts and the US constitutional mandatory immunization were constitutional. Withdrawn from this decision for more than 100 years, this case is still discussed and analyzed in academic writing and shows the continued tension and conflict relevance. The US Supreme Court quoted this case 69 times before 2004 (5).

The facts of Jacobson vs. Massachusetts fully explain the economic analysis of immunization, the first Constitutional Supreme Court action against mandatory immunization laws. The case involved the Massachusetts law which allowed municipalities to vaccinate smallpox vaccines for public health and safety regulations as needed. After that, after judging that smallpox was "spreading somehow" and "continued to increase", the city of Cambridge passed the mandatory immunization regulation. This order is an economic way that the benefits of mandatory vaccination outweigh the costs of providing vaccines, discovering and investigating resistance (Jacobson etc.), and allowing individuals to decide whether to vaccinate It represents a decision.

This forced vaccination program eventually led to the famous Jacobson v. Massachusetts incident. The case was the result of the refusal of immunization by Cambridge residents. The Swedish immigrant Henning Jacobson refused to get vaccinated for fear of his being sick. He insisted that the previous smallpox vaccine became sick when he was a child. Instead of paying a $ 5 fine, he challenged the state's forces to force vaccinations on people. His lawsuit failed at the state level, but Jacobson appealed the ruling, so this case was heard in the Supreme Court. In 1905, the Supreme Court upheld the law of Massachusetts: reportedly Jacobson could not refuse mandatory immunization

First of all, the US Supreme Court has never directly decided to grant religious immunization against forced vaccination, but the court established the right to receive state vaccinations as Jacobson v. Massachusetts stated. This decision has been strongly advocated by frequently exempted opponents, which clearly shows the broader powers of the state in this area. McCarthy v. Bozeman, 212 F. According to 2d 945 (2002), the District Court judge dismissed the State of Arkansas State and requested religious exempt applicants to belong to an accredited religious organization for vaccination, the procedure for obtaining immunity is 1 and 14 th corrections were violated.