Whereas the 5th Amendment contains the Due Process Clause limiting the actions of the federal government concerning liberty and property rights, the 14th Amendment applies the limitations to the state actions. Swediman (2010) notes that the United States (US) Constitution does not expressly set forth the explicit right to health care. However, the Supreme Court has, in some instances, interpreted that the law provides the right to acquire medical attention from willing providers at one's own expense. More so, Congress has enacted statutes like Medicaid, Medicare, and the Children's Health Insurance Program to define exclusive statutory rights to receive health care services from the government. Such congressional actions establish a link between public health policy and laws.

Hence, in the first place, the Fifth Amendment connects directly with health laws and policy concerning liberty interests in the enforcement of public health programs. For example, Hoke and Swinburne (n.d.) argue that individuals invoke their liberty interests in situations where public health officials or a department's actions will hamper their freedom of movement or will invade their bodies. For example, the enforcement of quarantine programs or the civil commitment and coerced medication would require a full hearing before implementation. Despite the detention or medication of an individual before a hearing during emergencies, the trial should be held within a few days to ensure compliance with the constitutional requirements. Similarly, body intrusions such as the compulsory administration of a medical exam or testing require procedural safeguards entailing a notice and a chance to be heard by a neutral decision-maker (Hoke & Swinburne, n.d.). The liberty interests of the individual must also be protected in instances of disease surveillance to ensure there is no abuse of discretion by the administrative officers responsible for the policy implementation.

Equally, the revocation and regulation of licensees of businesses impacting public health must also follow the due process provisions of the Fifth Amendment for it to be acceptable. Hoke and Swinburne (n.d.) underscore how this requirement relates to the regulation of licensed establishments that provide tobacco or food services where a state health department has the authority to regulate. Specifically, the license for the operation of a business or the engagement in an occupation may constitute the property rights provision of the Fifth Amendment, which calls to action the adherence to the due process clause before revocation or suspension. Hence, the agency responsible should comply by providing a notice or establishing the basis for its actions. The officer should also grant the individual or business establishment the right of hearing and the avenue for appealing any decision of the health department. In most jurisdictions, the Administrative Procedures Act has been developed to outline the approach to appealing decisions.

Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment's tenets link with health policy concerning arbitrary medical actions. Specifically, the connection relates to the enforcement of any laws curtailing the immunities or privileges of US citizens and the emphasis on due process. Fujiwara (2006) considers a case where an individual studying abroad is exposed to an acute communicable disease and wishes to return to the US. However, if a state enacts a policy requiring the mandatory vaccination of those exposed to the condition, the individual might feel his or her 14th Amendment rights are infringed if the state mandates the immunization. In such a scenario, the Supreme Court has recognized over the years that the states have the police power to enact health laws, including regulations for vaccination and quarantine to protect their citizens (Fujiwara, 2006). Therefore, whereas the 14th Amendment safeguards the right to liberty, such rights do not extend to the disregard for causing injury or harm to others. Even when the medical community disputes the effectiveness of the health policy, the court has the right to protect the safety and health of the public. Accordingly, the law constrains liberty to the extent that it does not amount to the invasion of rights that fundamental law secures.

Furthermore, the “Equal Protection” clause of the 14th Amendment has been reflected in numerous congressional public health enactments, despite the absence of the explicit right to health care in the US Constitution. According to Swendiman (2010), Congress has formulated various statutes establishing and defining particular statutory rights of the citizens to receive government medical services. Besides, laws like the 1964 Civil Rights Act's Title VI outlaw the discrimination under programs funded by the federal government and affect service delivery approaches under national-level programs and grants. Through congressional action, Congress finances the payment of health care services that fall under the entitlement statutes. The activities of the legislative body have aimed at providing for the general welfare, hence oriented to ensuring the provision of public health services. Other actions by Congress have introduced requirements for employers, individuals, and the private health insurance market that help regulate the power of taxation and spending for the general welfare. The “Equal Protection” close expands further to ensure that individuals have the freedom to choose to pursue treatment at their own cost without any limitations or discrimination. Therefore, the 14th Amendment both defines the extents of state powers in the provision of health care and ensuring that everyone is treated fairly in the medical service industry. The government has been granted the discretionary authority to determine the extent of funding, while citizens are shielded from unfavorable health market situations.

If you need a similar paper, kindly go to Discussion Board Homework Help

References

Fujiwara, S. (2006). Is mandatory vaccination legal in time of epidemic? AMA Journal of Ethics, 8(4), 227-229. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2006.8.4.hlaw1-0604.

Hoke, K., & Swinburne, M. (n.d.). Partnership for public health law: Advancing public health through law. The Network for Public Health Law. Retrieved on 15 December 2019 from https://www.apha.org/-/media/files/pdf/factsheets/due_process_and_public_health_factsheet.ashx?la=en&hash=9B2F0038A6F770B9C7C4B3B9CCF5761BF85A243A

Swendiman, K. S. (2010). Health care: constitutional rights and legislative powers (US Congress R40846). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.