You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 283 No. 22, June 14, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Health Law and Ethics
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (15)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Medical Practice
 •Health Policy
 •Law and Medicine
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Public Health Law in a New Century

Part II: Public Health Powers and Limits

Lawrence O. Gostin, JD, LLD

JAMA. 2000;283:2979-2984.

The Constitution allocates public health powers among the federal government and the states. Federal public health powers include the authority to tax, spend, and regulate interstate commerce. These powers enable the federal government to raise revenues, allocate resources, economically penalize risk behavior, and broadly regulate in the public's interest.

States have an inherent authority to protect, preserve, and promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the people, termed police powers. Police powers enable states to preserve the public health in areas ranging from injury and disease prevention to sanitation, waste disposal, and environmental protection. The Rehnquist Court has emphasized the limits of federal powers and the primacy of states in public health issues affecting local concerns.

Finally, the Constitution safeguards individual interests in autonomy, privacy, liberty, and property. The Supreme Court often defers to public health authorities in matters of public health, but engages in strict scrutiny if government interferes with fundamental freedoms or discriminates against a suspect class. Provided that they act justly and reasonably to avert a serious health threat, the Court should cede to agencies the power to act for the communal good.


Author Affiliation: Georgetown/Johns Hopkins University Program in Law and Public Health, Washington, DC, and Baltimore, Md.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

An Enhanced Approach to Distinguishing Public Health Practice and Human Subjects Research
Hodge
J Law Med Ethics 2005;33:125-141.
 

Ethical issues in public health: a qualitative study of public health practice in Scotland
Rogers
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2004;58:446-450.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Large-Scale Quarantine Following Biological Terrorism in the United States: Scientific Examination, Logistic and Legal Limits, and Possible Consequences
Barbera et al.
JAMA 2001;286:2711-2717.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Public Health Law in a New Century: Part III: Public Health Regulation: A Systematic Evaluation
Gostin
JAMA 2000;283:3118-3122.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2000 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.