Can a government in the US enforce administration of a drug onto a US citizen during a public health crisis? Is there a law or a judgment from a Court in the United States wherein it is established that a government (at any level) in the US, during an officially declared public health crisis, can enforce administration of a drug/medical treatment onto a US citizen who has been declared by a public health authority (PHA) to be medically ill/sick? I've come to know that a State government can make vaccination mandatory1. That said, I've also learned that in cases concerning mandatory vaccination4 of persons of certain age groups, some state governments provide exemptions on certain grounds, such as medical, religious and philosophical2. However, in my proposed example case, the drug in question, let us call it DRUG, is not a vaccine at all. Instead, DRUG is a drug which has induced swift recovery in some of the sick patients. Assume that information is not available in public domain as to whether the aforesaid recovered patients were able to give informed consent with regard to the treatment they received or not. Neither can a Jack or Joe contact those patients for the lack of their contact details available on account of protecting their privacy. Points to be noted: The available data from hospitals and PHA suggests that no known medical treatment or DRUG is so far universally effective on patients -- varied age-groups (some having co-morbidity too). Varying amount of information on other treatments/drugs already tested on patients or been researched/explored is available in the public domain, therefore, a citizen can attempt to make an opinion based on the available data. There may be a dearth of data released from PHA (whether deliberately done or not is not proven yet) on the number of patients administered with the DRUG who either fell more sick or died, but PHA is providing the statistics on those who did recover. Some probable reasons behind the data release could be: PHA might be biased in the favor of DRUG (for whatsoever reason - genuine or otherwise). Another reason could be: PHA's accountability is sought by political leaders, and the latter - under public pressure - might be pushing PHA to push forward with the DRUG. Like many political issues, this is subjective and open to speculation. Suggestion: consider historical data and analyses of earlier epidemics with similar medical treatment related issues, so as to make a reasonable assumption on why PHA is doing what it is doing. Note: to be clear here, I'm not trying to establish that PHA is a bad actor. But during crises, a lot of folks, whether acting as or for the authorities, want the crises to end as quickly as possible, sometimes by sidelining or deliberately encroaching the fundamental rights of the citizens. Hence, skepticism towards PHA's actions is justified from a citizen's point of view. There is emerging evidence, in the form of patient/medical staff testimonies and/or medical literature, that DRUG cause some serious side effects. Whether this happens with every patient or not is not clear yet. Armed with the information (as given in points 1,2,and 3), some veteran medical professionals using medical literature and statistical data available from PHA and hospitals have called into question the efficacy of DRUG. Despite the evidences (from points 3 and 4) already at the disposal of PHA, it has argued to their respective government that further delay in administering the DRUG upon the sick patients can severely harm the community's health and prosperity, and that the whole of the community should not be held as a hostage by those who are resisting the administration of DRUG, irrespective of them being patients. Information tsunami from hundreds of print media and electronic media outlets, and from dozens of social media sites has made it near impossible for a lot of citizens to accept as well as discard information, especially when "sponsored content as news" has become the norm for many such outlets and sites. The citizens concerned are capable of informed decision making. I'm not concerned with the process and information a citizen would use to reach a decision. Intertwined questions I'm looking to be answered: What hard legal facts (such as a law or the effects of its application discussed in a judgment) are available to a US citizen so as to make a reasonable assumption on whether their own elected government can forcefully (against their will) administer a drug/medical treatment onto them if they are declared sick and are deemed a threat to public health? If step1 is positive, it would mean informed consent to medical treatment3 is no longer sought. However, does the law/judgment allows information about the treatment be made available to the patient, whether voluntarily or mandatory? Please note: I'm only interested in a law (Act, Rules, Regulations, etc.) or a judgment from a Court of the US. Everything else, no matter how obvious it is, is a personal opinion which I'm not looking for. the question is not specifically about the ongoing health crisis in the US as of May 2020. Sources: Is Mandatory Vaccination Legal in Time of Epidemic? Vaccination Law 101: A Guide for Children’s Lawyers Informed Consent: An Ethical Obligation or Legal Compulsion? State Law &amp; Vaccine Requirements
The government cannot force people to get vaccinated, without passing a law to that effect. When they do, they can. This was sorted out in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, when the Supreme Court, in 1905, ruled: The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State. It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine in the first instance whether vaccination is or is not the best mode for the prevention of smallpox and the protection of the public health. Nothing in that ruling is specific to vaccinations as opposed to other medical treatments. If a law mandating a certain vaccination exists in a state, the citizen's beliefs about the efficacy of the vaccination are irrelevant to the legal issue -- get the vaccination, or the punishment. If a state were to pass a law mandating snake-oil innoculations to prevent smallpox infections, the law could be challenged in court. In general, people have the right to go about their business without the government interfering in their fundamental rights, but fundamental rights are not absolute, they are attenuated in case of a "compelling government interest": which leads to a particular kind of judicial review, strict scrutiny. While preventing a virulent deadly disease is arguably a compelling government interest, snake-oil is not necessary to reach that end (it does not reach that end, so it is certainly not necessary to reach that end).
In the US, it stems from some statute, such as RCW Ch. 71.05 in Washington state, which starts by stating the rationale for the law, and which are to protect the health and safety of persons suffering from behavioral health disorders and to protect public safety, and prevent inappropriate commitment of persons living with behavioral disorders and to eliminate legal disabilities that arise from involuntary commitment etc. The various laws in this chapter make it possible to commit a person to a mental institute or to undergo involuntary therapy. There is a separate chapter, RCW 71.34, applicable to minors. In general, this law calls for professional evaluation and treatment, without legislating science. The trigger is generally evidence of a tendency towards serious harm or grave disability, with a requirement that the action be requested by a certain kind of behavioral professional. There are not many hard-coded limits on what can be ordered: while RCW 71.05.215 &quot;has a right to refuse antipsychotic medication&quot;, that right is overridden when &quot;it is determined that the failure to medicate may result in a likelihood of serious harm or substantial deterioration or substantially prolong the length of involuntary commitment and there is no less intrusive course of treatment than medication in the best interest of that person&quot;. Along with the legislation cited, there are also regulations which don't require legislative action (they are &quot;empowered&quot; by the statutes), which could specifically forbid a treatment, but again choice of treatments are left to the professional. In some other jurisdiction, it's possible that a certain treatment would be explicitly outlawed.
We're missing a lot of information that we'd need to offer a full answer. Here are some of the things that will probably drive the analysis: the type of counselor we're talking about; the types of information the counselor disclosed; the reason she disclosed it; the job functions of the people to whom she disclosed it; the reason the client is bothered by the disclosure. Generally speaking, a mental-health counselor has a fiduciary duty to maintain the confidentiality of patient information, but my understanding is that in most cases, the counselor would be allowed to discuss a case with colleagues for the purposes of advancing the patient's treatment. So discussing the facts of a tough case with a supervisor is not going to be as problematic as idly gossiping about clients with custodial staff. Beyond the permitted disclosures, there are also situations in which counselors are required to disclose confidential information, including cases where the counselor suspects child or elder abuse or where the counselor believes the client poses a danger to herself or others. If the disclosure was truly not permitted, then it may be that the client has a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. In Georgia, proving that case requires evidence that: That the counselor had information relating to the client that she knew or should have known was confidential; That the counselor communicated the client’s confidential information to third parties; That the client did not give informed consent to the counselor’s conduct; That the confidential information was not a matter of general knowledge; and That the disclosure harmed the client. As you noted, the client could also file a complaint with the state licensing board. I don't know of any federal laws or regulations that would come into play in the situation you've described.
A medical practitioner may use whatever methods s/he thinks proper and appropriate, subject to the limits of malpractice law, and to the right of the patient (or patient's parent or guardian for a child) to give informed consent to any procedure or treatment. A patient can not insist on a treatment or method that the doctor or dentist does not wish to perform, having only the right to seek another practitioner. Nor is a practitioner required to use only procedures covered by insurance, unless bound by contract to do so (as may be the case with some &quot;in-network&quot; or HMO agreements). Again, the patient is free to seek treatment elsewhere. So the parent could insist that the dentist not use &quot;conscious sedation&quot; by withholding consent, the dentist may then refuse to treat at all, unless perhaps this was an emergency situation not allowing the parent to seek another treatment venue.
In the US the first amendment protections given to free expression make defamation claims significantly harder to pursue than in some other countries. o-called 'product defamation&quot; claims are generally harder yet. In the case of Dominion Voting Systems some of those sued seem to have made fairly specific allegations, which, if true, would involve probably criminal wrong doing. And please note that none of those suits have yet had a trial on the merits, to the best of my knowledge. We don't know if the statements complained of will be held to be defamatory or protected. Claims that a vaccine is not as safe as it should be, or the regulators were too quick to approve it, are harder to frame as defamatory of the drug companies. Since the government contracted in advance for enough vaccine to give a dose to everyone in the US (as I understand it) damages would be hard to prove. And there would be a risk of a PR backlash. It is not as if any of these companies has tried to file a suit and had it dismissed. They have not chosen to file, for which there could be many reasons.
One thing that may prevent this is contract law: the employer may not have the power to impose new requirements on employees during the period of the current contract. For prisons that are run by government agencies, there may also be statutory restrictions on what the warden or Bureau of Prisons can compel employees to do without legislative approval (this is a general feature of government employment). There are additional disability and religion-based protections for employees. Apart from such legal considerations, the vaccine is not universally available, which explains why not all employers mandate that employees get vaccinated. It's not clear how prisons, specifically, are relevant: there's no general rule that &quot;because it's a prison, normal law is suspended&quot;.
Giving someone a drug without their consent can be considered infliction of bodily harm in various jurisdiction. When it caused a negative effect on the person the perpetrator did not anticipate, it might be grossly negligent (if that effect was likely to occur) or just negligent (if one could not reasonably expect that this effect would occur). Details depend on jurisdiction and the mood of the judge. It might also be a factor if the court rules that the defendant acted in bad faith (for example, by expecting that the drug would make the injured party consent to something they wouldn't have consented to otherwise, regardless of if this actually happened). Additionally, if the intention was to cure the injured party from a medical ailment (as implied by "pill with beneficial effect") it could theoretically be possible that the perpetrator also gets charged for practicing medicine without a license (if that is illegal in the jurisdiction). Should the perpetrator have a medical license, they will likely get charged with medical malpractice, because in most jurisdictions it is illegal to treat a patient without their consent (if the patient is in a condition which makes informed consent possible). Regarding adding something to your own drink and inadvertently poisoning someone else who drinks from it: In most societies, drinking from the glass of someone else is considered against social etiquette, so a possible defense could be that the perpetrator could not reasonably expect that the person would do that. But it could still be judged as infliction of bodily harm through negligence depending on the circumstances and how likely it was to happen. For example, in an environment where many glasses with similar-looking drinks stand on a table, the risk that glasses get mixed up is quite high. Details - again - depend on jurisdiction.
Yes and No. The Federal U.S. Government as well as each individual state and territory claim Soverign Immunity to a limited degree. In the case of Federal Government, they claim Soverign Immunity to a near limitless degree (more on this in a moment), while States and Territories claim &quot;State Soverign Immunity&quot; which grants them immunity with respect to all soverign powers granted under the U.S. Constitution. To clarify, each U.S. State is seperately soverign in all matters not explicitly allocated to the Federal Government by the U.S. Constitution and all constitutionally written laws. Where the Constitution does not in writing claim a power for the federal government nor reserver a power for the state government, the power is assumed to be state government. So a State can claim immunity for a police situation but not a law it makes regarding immigration or foriegn policy, since that is the exclusive wheelhouse of the Feds. Per the 11th amendment, states can only be sued in state court by citizens of the state, while non-state citizens wishing to sue a state must sue in the Federal Court (Which for the purposes of the trial may adopt the defendant State's laws and regulations for the purposes of questions of fact and law brought up in the suit). All U.S. States and the Federal Goverment additionally wave Soverign Immunity under specific conditions outlined in laws. In the case of the Federal Government, the laws governing when this immunity is waived are governed by the Federal Torts Claims Act (1946) and the Tucker Act (1887). The FTCA covers intentional torts by the Federal Government, while the Tucker Act typically covers matters related to contractual obligations or monitary interactions with the federal government. Things that may be sued for include but are not limited too: Intentional Torts committed by Government Agents in their Official Capacity (i.e. When the FBI violates your rights or maliciously investigates you). Contractual disputes where the Government is a party to the Contract, either in written or implied terms. Constitutional Claims (i.e. The Government may have violated the Constitution. These tend to be for non-monitary relief such as mandemuses, though the 5th Amendment's Taking Clause can be invoked of the government took property and does not justly compensate.). Individual Agencies of the Government when the monitary claim is not drawn from the U.S. Treasury (the agencies own allocated budget is used to pay). Refund for taxes paid In all cases, a Judge will determin if the Government, under the laws, can be sued. If in the example of a government employee being sued, the Justice Department will first make a determination if the employee was acting as an agent of the government when they committed the tortious act, and then will declare themselves Respondent Superior through the agency of employement. From there, the case becomes a suit against the Federal Government and FTCA immunity waiver is determined by a Judge. For example, lets say you (Mr. Rapt) sue Special Agent Jimmy Jones of an intentional tort that he committed in the course of his duty as an FBI agent. The DOJ will first declare that they are Respondent Superior in the case of Rapt v. Jones, thus turning the case to Rapt v. United States Government, Department of Justice, Federal Beura of Investigations, and Jones (Rapt v. United States, et. al.). From here, the Judge who gets the case then determins if the U.S. Government under FTCA can be sued by Rapt, based on Rapt's citizenship status (usually permanent legal residents are covered as citizens for this point, but I can say for certain in this particular law), ripeness (the suit must be filed within 2 years of the incident or first knowledge), and immunity waiver under FTCA. In the case of the State Government, they should have similar laws, but I'm not going to identify all 50 individual laws here. Additionally, the 11th Amendment permits U.S. Congress to waive a State's immunity to suit in certain cases (mostly comes up with the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment.). As a fun point, in all cases where a government appears as a defendant in a suit, it is automatically a Bench Trial, as the government usually include a waiver of their right as defendant to a jury trial. The thinking here is that, as a country that was founded by rebelling against the government, a jury of 12 of the government's citizens aren't going to give them any slack at trial, where as a judge (who they pay) is much more likely. TL;DR: Both questions are yes. The immunity is waived under federal law for certain cases, but it is a judge who will make the ruling if the specific case meets the aformentioned waived immunity.