Case Study: Mallon Vs. Massachusetts Case

Jessica Tice
10/10/17
Dear Dr. Concerned, In response to your questions about the rights of public health officials, I find that there are a great many details to consider. As I am sure you are aware, the United States Supreme Court decision in 1905 on the Jacobson v. Massachusetts case set a legal precedent in situations such as these. The ruling stated that the Board of Health had the right to require citizens to receive vaccinations in order to control a spreading smallpox epidemic . Legally, this supports the rights of you and your colleagues at the CDC to do what you deem necessary to protect public health, even if it may infringe upon the personal liberties of citizens. Just because there is legal precedent, however, does not mean that
Given that there were a large number of healthy carriers, besides Mallon, none of whom were taken into custody as she was, this measure seems extreme . The argument for her continued quarantine was that, when given freedom from her first quarantine, Mallon continued to transmit the infection through cooking. In Leavitt’s discussion of Mallon’s experience, however, she points out that the doctors and public health officials in charge of Mallon’s quarantine were so focused on the science that they forgot the social aspects. They searched for a cure but didn’t try to work with her or teach her . If Mallon had been educated on preventative measures and trained in a new profession without the risk of transmission that cooking had, she would no longer have been a threat to public health outside of quarantine. What should be exemplified from the case of Typhoid Mary, isn’t was done to her, but what was learned from her. “Using … their experience with Mallon, the health officials developed treatment protocols and regulatory guidelines that could be widely applied,” and these guidelines could be followed to prevent transmission without the need for quarantine . While detention methods may be helpful, they are not always necessary, and we should only implement them when they absolutely
During past tuberculosis and syphilis epidemics, this measure was hotly debated. Many felt that it would prevent the rapid spreading of the disease, to be able to know and monitor those who were infected . The other side of the debate, however, argued that “the means purposed [would] produce hardship without corresponding value, and that they are both unnecessary and insufficient.” A mandatory registration of this kind has the potential to build up stigma around the disease. By requiring people to turn over information on individuals with a disease to health officials, it creates an environment of fear. As some argued in the case of TB, such measures may even worsen transmission because the ill will hide from the registration, leading to lack of treatment or education on an individual’s preventative measures . This, coupled with the fact that AIDS is most common in some already-stigmatized groups—like homosexuals—increases the risk that a registry would do more harm to the sick than it would benefit the public. Basically, registering and monitoring every individual with AIDS would be “impractical” and has the very real potential to draw attention away from other preventative and safety measures that should be implemented by diverting focus to blaming, stigmatizing, and ostracizing victims