Today, public health regulation at all levels faces unprecedented challenges both at home and abroad. The September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., by the Al Qaeda terrorist network and the anthrax bioterrorism that followed shortly thereafter have put public health regulation at the forefront of homeland security. The anthrax scare, in particular, has greatly tested the American public health system, calling into question whether the United States and its component states and localities are prepared to handle (...) a major outbreak of infectious disease, such as smallpox, in a future bioterrorist action. While the response of public health agencies was commendable, especially in light of the magnitude of the assaults, it is manifestly clear that the American public health system will be hard pressed to meet similar challenges that may lie ahead.The events of fall 2001 follow a period of major challenges for public health. The AIDS pandemic has killed millions of people throughout the globe, especially in Africa and other parts of the developing world. (shrink)

“Public health legal preparedness” is a term born in the ferment, beginning in the late 1990s, that has led to unprecedented recognition of the essential role law plays in public health and, even more recently, in protecting the public from terrorism and other potentially catastrophic health threats.The initial articulation of public health has not kept pace with rapid evolution in the concept and in practical development of public health preparedness itself. This poses the risk that legal preparedness may fall behind (...) construction of general readiness in the public health system—and may, in fact, undercut achievement of comprehensive public health preparedness for massive threats to health in both the United States and world-wide. Inadvertent results might include both negative health impacts and infringement on individual rights. (shrink)

Law is an essential tool for improving public health infrastructure and outcomes; however, existing state statutory public health laws may be insufficient. Built over decades in response to various diseases/conditions, public health laws are antiquated, divergent, and confusing. The Turning Point Public Health Statute Modernization National Collaborative addressed the need for public health law reform by producing a comprehensive model state act. The Act provides scientifically, ethically, and legally sound provisions on public health infrastructure, powers, duties, and practice. This article (...) examines how statutory law can be a tool for improving the public's health, existing needs for public health law reform, themes and provisions of the Turning Point Act, and how it is being used by public health practitioners. (shrink)

The events of September 11, 2001 have prompted significant concern to protect against future terror attacks, especially attacks that would involve the use of biological weapons - the most dangerous weapons of massdestruction considered accessible to terrorist groups and organizations. This concern, in turn, has led to a re-evaluation of the public health system and its preparedness to meet the challenges of treating a large number of people in circumstances of public fear and significant demand for resources. One important result (...) of this re-evaluation has been the development of a Model State Emergency Health Powers Act that is designed to grant state officials the authority necessary to coordinate an effective response to biological tenor. The Model Act was first publicized in late October, 2001,and a revised version was publicized December21, 2001.As of October 1,2002,legislation based on the Act had been introduced in thirty-six states, and versions of the Act had been enacted in twenty states and the District of Columbia. (shrink)

There is perhaps no duty more fundamental to American government than the protection of the public's health, safety, and welfare. On September 11, 2001, this governmental duty was severely tested through a series of terrorist acts. The destruction of the World Trade Towers in New York City and a portion of the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., presented many Americans with a new, visible reality of the potential harms that terrorists can cause. The staggering loss of lives damaged the national psyche (...) in ways far exceeding the physical scars to American institutions.As horrific as the images of destruction and loss of human lives may be, events that unfolded after September 11 revealed another dreaded, and potentially more catastrophic, threat to Americans sense of security and public health: bioterrorism. Unlike terrorists that use bombs, explosives, or other tools for mass destruction, a bioterrorist's weapon is an infectious agent. (shrink)

Today, public health regulation at all levels faces unprecedented challenges both at home and abroad. The September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., by the Al Qaeda terrorist network and the anthrax bioterrorism that followed shortly thereafter have put public health regulation at the forefront of homeland security. The anthrax scare, in particular, has greatly tested the American public health system, calling into question whether the United States and its component states and localities are prepared to handle (...) a major outbreak of infectious disease, such as smallpox, in a future bioterrorist action. While the response of public health agencies was commendable, especially in light of the magnitude of the assaults, it is manifestly clear that the American public health system will be hard pressed to meet similar challenges that may lie ahead.The events of fall 2001 follow a period of major challenges for public health. The AIDS pandemic has killed millions of people throughout the globe, especially in Africa and other parts of the developing world. (shrink)

“Public health legal preparedness” is a term born in the ferment, beginning in the late 1990s, that has led to unprecedented recognition of the essential role law plays in public health and, even more recently, in protecting the public from terrorism and other potentially catastrophic health threats.The initial articulation of public health has not kept pace with rapid evolution in the concept and in practical development of public health preparedness itself. This poses the risk that legal preparedness may fall behind (...) construction of general readiness in the public health system—and may, in fact, undercut achievement of comprehensive public health preparedness for massive threats to health in both the United States and world-wide. Inadvertent results might include both negative health impacts and infringement on individual rights. (shrink)

Public health responses to the Covid‐19 pandemic included various measures to mitigate the spread of the virus. Among these, the most restrictive was a broad category referred to as “lockdowns.” We argue that the reasoning offered in favor of extended lockdowns—those lasting several months or longer—did not adequately account for a host of countervailing considerations, including the impact on mental illness, education, employment, and marginalized communities as well as health, educational, and economic inequities. Furthermore, justifications offered for extended lockdowns set (...) aside a basic tenet of public health ethics: restrictions on liberty and autonomy should be the least intrusive means of achieving the desired end. Since it is now clear that extended lockdowns cause severe harm to many vulnerable populations, the burden of proof is on those who would advocate for them, and there must be a much higher bar to implement an extended lockdown, with high‐quality evidence that the benefit would substantially exceed its harm. (shrink)

These teaching materials explore the specific powers of governments to implement control measures in response to communicable disease, in two different contexts:The first context concerns global pandemic diseases. Relevant legal authority includes international law, World Health Organization governance and the International Health Regulations, and regulatory authority of nations.The second context is centered on U.S. law and concerns control measures for drug-resistant disease, using tuberculosis as an example. In both contexts, international and domestic, the point is to understand legal authority to (...) address public health emergencies. (shrink)

Disease in wildlife raises a number of issues that have not been widely considered in the bioethical literature. However, wildlife disease has major implications for human welfare. The majority of emerging human infectious diseases are zoonotic: that is, they occur in humans by cross-species transmission from animal hosts. Managing these diseases often involves balancing concerns with human health against animal welfare and conservation concerns. Many infectious diseases of domestic animals are shared with wild animals, although it is often unclear whether (...) the infection spills over from wild animals to domestic animals or vice versa. Culling is the standard means of managing such diseases, bringing economic considerations, animal welfare and conservation into conflict. Infectious diseases are also major threatening processes in conservation biology and their appropriate management by culling, vaccination or treatment raises substantial animal ethics issues. One particular issue of great significance in Australia is an ongoing research program to develop genetically modified pathogens to control vertebrate pests including rabbits, foxes and house mice. Release of any self-replicating GMO vertebrate pathogen gives rise to a whole series of ethical questions. We briefly review current Australian legal responses to these problems. Finally, we present two unresolved problems of general importance that are exemplified by wildlife disease. First, to what extent can or should 'bioethics' be broadened beyond direct concerns with human welfare to animal welfare and environmental welfare? Second, how should the irreducible uncertainty of ecological systems be accounted for in ethical decision making? (shrink)

Post-9/11, concern about bioterrorism has transformed public health from unappreciated to a central component of national security. Within the War on Terror, bioterrorism preparedness has taken a back seat only to direct military action in terms of funding. Domestically, homelessness, joblessness, crime, education, and race relations are just a few of a litany of pressing issues requiring government attention. Even within the biomedical sciences and healthcare, issues surrounding the fact that more than 40 million Americans lack health insurance, the rising (...) cost of prescription medications, and the use of government funds for research using embryonic stem cells remain unresolved. Should we prioritize a hypothetical threat (bioterrorism), or existing conditions that have implications for identifiable individuals? Even more fundamentally, should we prioritize research aimed at defense from bioterrorism (or even terrorism in general) when there are so many pressing social problems that affect the U.S. population? (shrink)

A single defining question perennially intrigues scholars and practitioners interested in public heath: To what extent should human rights be limited to protect the community’s health and safety? The question achieved prominence in the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001 and with the intentional dispersal of anthrax spores through the U.S. Postal Systein. The conflict between security and public health intensified with the development of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, (...) drafted by the Center for Law and the Public’s Health at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Model Act grants states consiclernble powers to control persons and property in response to a public health emergency, defined to inclucle bioterrorism or the appearance of novel or previously controlled or eradicated infectious agents or biological toxins. (shrink)