Jew Ho Vs. Jacobson Vs Massachusetts Case Study

There are many cases that involves human rights and public health interests. Two of the cases is Jew Ho vs. Williamson and Jacobson vs. Massachusetts. Both are similar in the concept of preventive care and how two individuals responded to that preventive care. In Jew Ho vs. Williamson, Jew Ho’s shop was placed in a quarantine district due to the fear of the bubonic plague. In Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, Jacobson refused to be vaccinated and argued that he should not be charged the penalty fine. Both cases are different, but they focus on how the concerns of the public’s health are displayed and enforced. Also, they both questioned the human rights of the individuals. The end results were different for both cases. The case won in favor of Jew Ho due to the quarantine being unreasonable and oppressive due to discrimination of the Chinese community. The state of Massachusetts won the case and ordered Jacobson to pay the …show more content…
In the state of Massachusetts, there are exceptions where individuals are allow to be excluded from vaccine. However, Jacobson was not an exception. He refused to pay the fine because he believed he had the rights to refuse the vaccine. The state reinforce the absolute rule of every adult must be vaccinated regardless of the harm it could do and or if the person’s state of well-being is stable or not. Therefore, Jacobson as an individual who’s well-being is stable and a resident within the state, his right under the 14th amendment is not violated. The need for him to be vaccinate could be due to the concept of producing herd immunity within the community. Since he is a healthy individual who has no proof that vaccinations have a bad impact on his health, his immunity would help others that cannot be vaccinated, such as weak immune system children. Thus, in order to protect as much of the public as possible, vaccination of individuals who can be should