“It’s a free country and we can do whatever we want to do.” This and other choice words used by the unknowing are used to defend their decision not to wear a mask. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It’s A Free Country
Breaking News Shooting On 5th Ave
If this were a free country as described by individuals that use this weak excuse. Then the person in the White House could indeed stand on 5th avenue and shoot the free country person. But we have laws against that. We also have laws against placing someone in imminent danger.
And when it comes to infectious diseases we have laws about that too. In short public health supersedes individual rights. Meaning, you do not have the right to endanger my life with an infectious disease.
And yes, you can be compelled to wear a mask for the public good.
But why is this you ask and where is the proof? And if I am right why isn’t there a federal mandate to wear a mask?
I gonna break this down real simple.
Short answer the federal government has failed to act in the best interest of the public. Because of this, some local governments have followed suit. The result is a spike in positive cases as well as thousands of unnecessary deaths.
Consider this: The most tested person in the United States doesn’t want you to wear a mask. That same person wants to reduce testing while maintaining his level of testing. But the same is not for you. He wants to slow down the testing. While more and more Americans die. Hmmm….
The Public Good vs Individual Rights
Public Health and personal freedom Kings college lecture Bruce G Charlton MD [email protected]
Source: Public Health and personal freedom in conflict
Excerpt: Public Health involves putting the health of the group as a higher priority than the interests of individuals. Whether or not this is justifiable must be argued case by case (Charlton, 1993).
As for the proof that public health supersedes individual freedom you need to do a little heavy reading. Lucky for you I did that already and can give it to you in small chunks.
Through the decades there have been challenges about public good vs individual rights. Sometimes the public good wins sometimes not. The following describes when civil liberties win over the public good.
Bike Helmets
In the case of mandatory bike helmets, the impact on the public was not deemed to be imperiled. So, despite facts showing that helmets save lives, some states do not require helmets. And there is no nationwide mandate on wearing helmets. Deaths still occur from head trauma in motorcycle and bike accidents. But this is the consequence that the rider pays. The public in general is not harmed by the rider’s decision not to wear a helmet.
Cigarettes
The same applies to cigarettes. Cigarettes have no redeemable quality. Death, cancer, etc. are assured. Banning cigarettes makes the plainest of sense but it will not happen. Smoking cigarettes does not place the public in imminent danger. So no ban is possible. But you can limit the exposure of the public to the effects of cigarette smoke.
Public Rights vs. Smoker’s Rights
Protecting the public from the effects of cigarette smoking does happen. By enacting rules designating where a smoker can smoke you minimize the effects of second-hand smoke
The smoker can smoke provided they take precautions. Not smoking in no-smoking zones is one such precaution. Increasing the cost of cigarettes is a deterrent. Other methods are used to discourage smoking but a ban is not one of them.
Infectious Disease
Now about infectious diseases, like Covid-19. The actions of one person can and have affected thousands of people. The public is in danger so the state(s) can take measures to protect the public. The government can suspend personal freedom when it causes sickness and or death. A mandate on wearing a mask can be done for the public good under this condition.
National Mandate
So why has there not been a national mandate on wearing masks? The answer is political. The person bold enough to mandate wearing masks risks a backlash that could cost him or her reelection. But a person more concerned with keeping people safe and alive would push pass politics and do the right thing. Some politicians have done this, others have not.
Not A Free Country
So, it is not a free country where you can do whatever you want. Especially where public health is concerned. But if you’re still unmoved read the following source articles. I have place excerpts here and links to the full articles.
Public Health vs. Civil Liberties
Excerpt: US courts almost always deferred to public health authorities that have deprived individuals of their liberty in the name of public health. One US state high court declared at the beginning of the twentieth century that, “[i]t is unquestionable that the legislature can confer police powers upon public officers for the protection of the public health. The maxim Salus populi suprema lex is the law of all courts in all countries. The individual right sinks in the necessity to provide for the public good” (Parmet, 1985). Even more remarkably, a plenary grant of authority was still found to be constitutional in the 1960s. In upholding the detention of a person with tuberculosis pursuant to a statute that provided virtually no procedural protections, a California appellate court declared in 1966 that, “[h]ealth regulations enacted by the state under its police power and providing even drastic measures for the elimination of disease…in a general way are not affected by constitutional provisions, either of the state or national government.”
Affect On HIV-AIDS
This supports the government’s use of police powers to protect the populace from infectious diseases. But it also allowed for the naming of persons with the disease. This is something that would change with HIV-AIDS.
SARS
Excerpt: If SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) taught us anything, it was how difficult it is to make such decisions in the face of uncertainty. It might turn out in retrospect that the quarantines we impose when faced with a potential epidemic are more extensive than necessary. But in the face of an evolving threat, public health officials have no choice but to weigh personal liberty against potential grave threats (Gostin et al, 2003).
Quarantine
This supports quarantine measures in the case of infectious diseases such as SARS. SARS-CoV-2 is the disease that creates the virus Covid-19
Observer-Reporter: Individual Freedom And Public Health
Source: OP-ED: Individual freedom and public health By Gary Stout May 26, 2020
Excerpt: A Massachusetts smallpox epidemic in 1901 gave us legal precedent on the question of the state’s compulsory vaccination law. The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts established the government’s right to use its “police powers” in order to control epidemic disease. The court affirmed the right of the people through their elected representatives to enact “health laws of every description to protect the common good.”
Continued
Since this important legal decision 100 years ago, the individual liberty versus public health debate has taken two paths. The government wins on issues that present grave societal threats such as infectious disease. Individual liberty wins out on less serious paternalistic measures that inhibit personal freedom such as tobacco use and the regulation of motorcycle helmets.
In the final analysis, the view that public health policy during this crisis is a threat to individual freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is a false premise. Most Americans agree that public health is the road map and not the enemy of getting people back to work.
End of Articles
Comments, Questions, Suggestions?
Was this article helpful? Did you learn anything new? I would like to hear your comments on this and any other article on this site. Take a moment, leave a comment or suggestion. Let’s start a conversation today.
