Public Health Laws and Ethical Implications Essay Paper
Public Health Laws and Ethical Implications Essay Paper
Public health laws and regulations are often passed in response to human-caused or natural disasters or the spread of an infectious disease or other health epidemic. Select a law or regulation that was passed after a significant public health event or in response to an epidemic. In a 1,250-1,500 word paper, discuss the public health law or regulation and describe its impact on a community, including its ethical implications. Examples could include laws/regulations targeting smoking, obesity, healthy mothers and babies, vaccinations, etc. Include the following:
Introduction with an overview of the law/regulation, why it was passed, and how it was or is being implemented on the local, state, and/or federal level.
A discussion of who the law/regulation targets and how they are being impacted.
An evaluation of the efficacy of the law/regulation. Include evidence demonstrating whether it is or is not working.
A discussion of the law/regulation’s ethical implications-Do you think this law is fair and ethical in natural? It is being applied ethically/fairly? Were/are there any unforeseen/unintended consequences to be considered?
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to Lopes Write. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.
Public health laws and ethical implications
Introduction
Public health laws are tools that the government applied to influence population health with regards to targeted casual relationships that have been verified through research to affect populations indiscriminately. In fact, these laws play a critical role in preventing premature death and reducing illness through providing the government with the authorities (at different jurisdictional levels to improve the general population’s health within societal norms and limits thus assuring the conditions necessary to protect and promote public health. Still, it is important to note that public health laws involve potential synergies and tradeoffs between individual interests and the collective good. Besides adhering to the principle of individual autonomy, the framing of these laws is guided by commitments to social justice even as they define the authority and jurisdiction of public health officials. In addition, they present status that create relevant agencies along with their core functions, mission, funds, power, and limitations of their action to protect individual liberties. In this respect, a public health law is any legislation that is derived from policies of public bodies, case laws and judicial rulings, regulations and agency rules, legislative enactments and statutes, and constitutions, which has important consequences for the health of a defined population (Huff, Kline & Peterson, 2015). The present paper discusses the public health laws concerned with tobacco products as well as their ethical implications. Public Health Laws and Ethical Implications Essay Paper
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
Discussion
The legislation under review is the amendment presented by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA) that deems tobacco products to be subject to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). It is a federal legislation that came into effect on 8th August 2016. This legislation requires that tobacco products be accompanied with health warning statements, and places restrictions on the distribution and sale of tobacco products. The legislation is to be issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a final rule that governs the distribution and sale of all tobacco products in the USA. Amended by the FSPTCA, the legislation provides the FDA with the authority to regulate smokeless tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, cigarette tobacco and cigarettes, as well as other tobacco products that are deemed subject to the law (National Archives and Records Administration, 2016). Through this legislation, the FDA extends its authority over tobacco products as presented in the FFDCA, with the only exception being accessories of such newly deemed tobacco products that have not been identified in the legislation. In addition, the legislation prohibits the sale of tobacco products without the prominent display of health warnings on the packaging and advertisements for these products. Also, it prohibits the sale of tobacco products to persons less than 18 years of age. The FDA justifies the legislation as a necessary public health intervention that would reduce the disease and death associated with tobacco products. Through deeming all tobacco products as subject to the FFDCA, the legislation anticipates to realize significant benefits for public health (National Archives and Records Administration, 2016). In this respect, FSPTCA presents a rule that provides FFDCA, through the FDA, with the authority to restrict the sale and distribution of tobacco products, while requiring that prominent warning statements accompany tobacco products on the packaging and advertisements.
There has been a court decision citing the legislation. In this case, the case involved Nicopure Labs, LLC verses the FDA with the court ruling made on 21st July 2017 before the US District Court for the District of Columbia. The parties involved in the case were the Nicopure Labs, LLC and other tobacco products producers, distributors and sales as the plaintiffs while the FDA, commissioner of FDA and secretary of Health and Human Services were the defendants. The cited legislations were the FFDCA as amended by the FSPTCA. The plaintiffs were challenging the legislation as a government policy related to tobacco control within the public health sphere as concerns empty e-cigarettes and nicotine-free e-liquids. The case address four specific topics: contents and disclosures measures; packaging and labeling measures; advertising, promotion and sponsorship; and sales to or by minors. The substantive issues discussed in the case were the right to equal protection, right to freedom of expression, right to procedural due process, procedural defect, sufficiency of scientific evidence, and ultra vires regulation (Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, 2019). The plaintiffs argued that the FDA did not have the authority to regulate the distribution and sale of empty e-cigarettes and nicotine-free e-liquids since they were neither derived nor made from tobacco. They further argues that the controls exerted by the FDA on their products were arbitrary and violated their first amendment rights. In its ruling, the court upheld the FDA rule, indicating that the legislation gave FDA the authority to regulate all components of tobacco products. It determined that empty e-cigarettes and nicotine-free e-liquids are components of tobacco products since they are part of the electronic nicotine delivery system. In addition, the court determined that the rule did not violate the plaintiffs’ first amendment rights since it was concerned with conduct during advertisements and not speech. Besides that, the court determined that the public health risk linked with nicotine justified the rule, thus contradicting claims that the rule is arbitrary (Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, 2019). Thus, it is clear that the legislation is extensively applied and receives support from the judiciary.
The legislation is a population-based intervention, and it has worked in concert with other tobacco control legislations to affect public health in the USA. In this case, it has been noted to reduce tobacco smoking initiation and use. The specific issue is that tobacco use has been identified as a preventable cause of death, disability and disease in the USA. That is because it harms virtually all the body organs to include lings and heart (Tam et al., 2018). In fact, tobacco use has been associated with at least $133 billion in direct health care costs, more than $170 billion in lost productivity, and in excess of 480,000 premature deaths every year in the USA. Moreover, these negative effects are not limited to the primary tobacco users and extend to secondhand users who report serious diseases and death. Put into perspective, 25% of non-smokers who include children are routinely exposed to secondhand smoke that has serious implications for their health. The legislation has had a significant effect through increasing quitting, reducing the consumption of tobacco products, and reducing the prevalence of public tobacco use. To be more precise, prevalence of tobacco use has reduced by 3.4% among young people and 5% among adults. In addition, tobacco use cessation has increased by 3.5%, and tobacco use initiation has decreased by 6.7% among young people. Also, exposure to secondhand smoke has reduced by 50%, hospital admissions for cardiovascular events and asthma morbidity has reduced by 5.1% and 20.1% respectively (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.). The implication is that the legislation has been effective with regards to addressing tobacco use in the USA as a public health concern.
Although the legislation has been effective, it presents an ethical concern. That is because it involves a tradeoff between achieving a public goods and addressing private interests. To be more precise, there is a troubling conflict between the public health benefits of the legislation on one hand, and economic interests of the manufacturers, distributers and sellers. On one hand, the legislation is designed to monitor tobacco distribution and sale as a public health threat since it has implications for public use, thus intervening to reduce the public health risk of tobacco and ameliorating the harm within the public. On the other hand, the legislation encroaches on basic economic liberties of tobacco manufacturers and traders, particularly competitive markets and freedom of contract. Although there are ethical concerns associated with the legislation with regards to collective and individual interests, there are synergies since it allows tobacco distribution and trade to continue although this occurs under more stringent monitoring. Besides that, applying the ‘harm principle of bioethics’ addresses this ethical concern by holding that competent adults should have the freedom of action to smoke while knowing the associated health risks of tobacco use, and that enjoying this freedom should be curtailed if it poses a risk to others as seen in secondhand smoking. Consequently, this introduces the notion that the legislation it directed towards improving public welfare rather than the individual welfare (Stanhope & Lancaster, 2014).
Conclusion
One must accept that FSPTCA is a legislation that seeks to improve public health through authorizing the FDA to control the distribution and sale of tobacco products in the USA. In addition, one must acknowledge that the legislation has faced some opposition, particularly from tobacco manufacturers and traders whose business interests have been negatively affected. Still, the legislation has achieved some success in improving public health thereby providing justification for the legislation. However, there are ethical concerns that have implications for the legislation, particularly how to balance public and individual interests. Applying the ‘harm principle of bioethics’ can help in resolving the concerns and justifying the legislation. Overall, the FSPTCA is a proactive legislation targeted at addressing tobacco distribution and sale as a public health concern.
References
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (2019). Nicopure Labs, LLC v. Food and Drug Administration. Retrieved from https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/litigation/decisions/us-20170721-nicopure-labs,-llc-v.-food-and
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (n.d.). What are the effective statewide tobacco interventions? Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/policy/hst/hi5/tobaccointerventions/index.html
Huff, R., Kline, M. & Peterson, D. (2015). Health promotion in multicultural populations: a handbook for practitioners and students (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
National Archives and Records Administration (2016). Food and Drug Administration, 21 CFR Parts 1100, 1140, and 1143. Federal Register, 81(90), 2974-29106. Retrieved from https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/files/live/United%20States/United%20States%20-%202016%20Deeming%20Regs%20%28Fed.%20Reg.%29%20-%20national.pdf
Stanhope, M. & Lancaster, J. (2014). Public health nursing: population-centered health care in the community (8th ed.). Maryland Heights, MO: Elsevier/Mosby.
Tam, J., Levy, D., Jeon, J., Clarke, J., Gilkeson, S., Hall, T. … & Meza, R. (2018). Projecting the effects of tobacco control policies in the USA through microsimulation: a study protocol. BMJ Open, 8(3), e019169. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019169 . Public Health Laws and Ethical Implications Essay Paper
