Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T22:50:29.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When Terrorism Threatens Health: How Far are Limitations on Human Rights Justified

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Lawrence O. Gostin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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 (“Model 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.

Type
Commentary
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , Winter 2003 , pp. 524 - 528
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Gostin, Compare L.O., “Public Health Law in an Age of Terrorism: Rethinking Individual Rights and Common Goods,” Health Affairs, 21 (2002): 79–93, with Annas, G.J., “Perspective: Bioterrorism, Public Health, And Human Rights,” Health Affairs, 21 (2002>): 94–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gostin, L.O. Sapsin, J.W. Teret, S.P. et al, “The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act: Planning and Response to Bioterrorism and Naturally Occurring Infectious Diseases,” JAMA, 288 (2002): 622–628. The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act is available from the web site of the Center for Law and the Public's Health, <www.publichealthlaw.net.>.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AL, AZ, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, LA, ME, MD, MN, MO, MT, NV, NH, NM, NC, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, VA, WI, and WY. The Center for Law and the Public's Health, The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act State Legislative Activity (2003), at <http://www.publichealthlaw.net/MSEHPA/MSEHPA_Legis_Activity.pdf.>..' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=AL,+AZ,+CT,+DE,+FL,+GA,+HI,+IA,+ID,+IL,+LA,+ME,+MD,+MN,+MO,+MT,+NV,+NH,+NM,+NC,+OK,+OR,+PA,+RI,+SC,+SD,+TN,+UT,+VT,+VA,+WI,+and+WY.+The+Center+for+Law+and+the+Public's+Health,+The+Model+State+Emergency+Health+Powers+Act+State+Legislative+Activity+(2003),+at+.>Google Scholar
For example, public health education campaigns do not involve compulsion.Google Scholar
Gostin, L.O., Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000): At 18–21.Google Scholar
Compare Epstein, R.A., “Let the Shoemaker Stick to His Last: A Defense of the ‘Old” Public Health, Perspectives in Biology & Medicine, 46, no. 3 (Summer 2003 Suppl.): S138–159 with Gostin, L.O. Bloche, M.G., “The Politics of Public Health: A Response to Epstein,” Perspectives in Biology & Medicine, 46, no. 3 (Summer 2003 Suppl.): S160–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, J. Gostin, L.O. Gruskin, S. et al, “Health and Human Rights,” Journal of Health and Human Rights, 1 (1994): 6–22. See also Gostin, L.O., “Public Health, Ethics, and Human Rights: A Tribute to the Late Jonathan Mann,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 29 (2001):121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.Google Scholar
No state, even in a time of emergency, may derogate from the Convention's most fundamental guarantees such as the right to life; freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and from medical or scientific experimentation without free consent; freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude; the right to recognition as a person before the law; and freedom of thought, conscience and religion.Google Scholar
The ICCPR uses indiscriminately the words “limitation” (Arts 5(3) and 18(3) and “restriction” (Arts. 12(3), 19(3), 21, 22(2)). Most international law scholars interpret these terms similarly.Google Scholar
“Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” Human Rights Quarterly, 7 (1985): 1–157.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Fitzpatrick, J., Human Rights in Crisis: The International System for Protecting Rights During States of Emergency (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994); Lillich, R.B., “The Paris Minimum Standards of Human Rights Norms in a State of Emergency,” American Journal of International Law, 79 (1985): 1072–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217, U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., at 71, U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948).Google Scholar
International Covenant of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3.Google Scholar
Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, General Comment 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, (2000), available at <www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/>. See Gostin, L.O., “The Right to Health: A Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, Hastings Center Report, 31 (2001): 29–30.Google Scholar
Gostin, L.O., “The Right to Health: A Right to the 'Highest Attainable Standard of Health,” Hastings Center Report 31 (March/April 2001): 29–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gostin, L.O., “When Terrorism Threatens Health: How Far are Limitations on Personal and Economic Liberties Justified?” Florida Law Review, 52 (2003):1–65.Google Scholar
School Bd. of Nassau Cty. v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 285 (1987).Google Scholar
See Industrial Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 644 (1980) (lowering benzene exposure levels required proof of “a significant risk of harm and therefore a probability of significant benefits”).Google Scholar
World Health Organization. Update 58 - First global consultation on SARS epidemiology, travel recommendations for Hebei Province (China), situation in Singapore. Available at: <http://www.who.int/csr/sars/archive/2003_05_17.html.> Accessed July 7, 2003.+Accessed+July+7,+2003.>Google Scholar
Gostin, L.O. Bayer, R. Fairchild, A., “Ethical and Legal Challenges Posed by SARS: Implications for the Control of Severe Infectious Disease Threats,” JAMA, 290 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loff, B. Burris, S., “Compulsory Detention: Limits of Law,” The Lancet, 358 (2001):146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, N., Contagious Divides: Epidemics and Race in San Francisco’s Chinatown (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001).Google Scholar
Institute of Medicine, The Future of the Public's Health in the 21st Century (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2003): At 1–18.Google Scholar