爱德华·P·理查兹:作为行政法的公共卫生法

选择字号:   本文共阅读 173 次 更新时间:2022-05-07 06:55:32

进入专题: 公共卫生法   公共卫生法治   公共卫生法学  

爱德华·P·理查兹  
,64 LA. L. REV.851,865-69(2004).

   [40] Jacobson,197 U.S. at 23-24.

   [41] Ibid. p.27.修正后的联邦法律 c.75,§137规定:市或镇卫生局认为公共卫生或安全有必要时,应要求并强制所有居民接种疫苗和重新接种疫苗,并向他们提供免费接种疫苗的手段。凡年满二十一岁且未受监护者,拒绝或不遵守该规定者,将被罚款五美元。

   [42] 289 U.S.36,42(1933).

   [43] Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Achievements in Public Health,1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries,48 Morbidity & Mortality Wkly. Rep.933,936(1999).

   [44] Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States,50 Morbidity & Mortality Wkly. Rep.10(2001), available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr50l4al.htm.

   [45] Am. Dental Ass'n, Fluoridation Facts 31(2005), available at http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridationfacts.pdf.

   [46] Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, CDC Statement on the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water, http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/nrc report.htm (last visited Feb.27,2007).

   [47] This is the subject of a rant by General Ripper in Dr. Strangelove, the classic Cold War movie. Dr. Strangelove Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (Hawk Films Ltd.1964).

   [48] See, e.g., Wilson v. City of Mountlake Terrace,417 P.2d 632,635(Wash.1966)((驳回了关于氟化处理超过了城市警察权力范围的争论,因为它只向居民提供含氟水); Rogowski v. City of Detroit,132 N.W.2d 16,24(Mich.1965)(认为,根据宪法、成文法律和宪章规定,市政府拥有“颁布[氟化物]条例的充分权力”); Kaul v. City of Chehalis,277 P.2d 352,357(Wash.1954)(认定该市的氟化措施是“有效行使警察权力,没有侵犯保障上诉人的宪法权利”)。

   [49] Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,467 U.S.837(1984).

   [50] 对于那些不经过公众评论和参与的法规,人们的尊重是很少的。 United States v. Mead Corp.,533 U.S.218,231(2001).

   [51] Chevron,476 U.S., pp.842-43.

   [52] 497 N.Y.S.2d 979,981 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.1986)(永久性禁令程序), aff’d,562 N.Y.S.2d 642(N.Y. App. Div.1990).

   [53] 关于艾滋病法律的历史及其失败的大量材料, See Edward Richards, Testimony Before the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS: AIDS Law - Past and Future (June 21,2005), http://biotech.law.Isu.edu/cphl/slides/aids-com.htm.

   [54] Richard E. Neustadt & Harvey V. Frneberg, the Swine Flu Affair: Decision-Making on a Slippery Disease (1978), available at http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cphl/history/books/sw/index.htm.

   [55] Unthank v. United States,732 F.2d 1517,1518-19(10th Cir.1984); Neustadt & F.[Neberg.

   [56] See Neustadt & Fineberg.

   [57] See James R. Thompson, Understanding the AIDS Epidemic: A Modeler’s Odyssey, in Applied Mathematical Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Approach 41,55(D.R. Shier & K.T. Wallenius eds.,1999); see also Herbert W. Hethcote & James A. Yorke, Gonorrhea Transmission Dynamics and Control, in 56 Lecture Notes in Biomathematics (S. Levin ed.,1984).

   [58] Randy Shilts, and the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the Aids Epidemic (1988).

   [59] Sue Fox, New Rules for Bathhouses OKd: L.A. County Supervisors Tentatively Approve an Ordinance to Require Health Permits, L.A. Times, Sept.8,2004, at B I; Andrew Jacobs, The Beast in the Bathhouse: Crystal Meth Use by Gay Men Threatens to Reignite an Epidemic, N.Y. Times, Jan.12,2004, at B 1; Regina McEnery, Bathhouse Spurs HIV Concerns: Cleveland Health Officials Push for Prevention Measures at New Club, Plain Dealer, July 16,2006, at Al.

   [60] City of New York v. New St. Mark’s Baths,497 N.Y.S.2d 979,983 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.1986).

   [61] 这种“艾滋病例外论(AIDS exceptionalism)”——治疗艾滋病毒(HIV)的方式与治疗其他传染病的方式不同——已开始慢慢退去,疾病预防与控制中心(CDC)新版的建议和资助指南(recommendations and funding guidelines)要求命名报告(named reporting)、接触者调查(contact investigation)以及减少检测障碍(如复杂的询问要求)等。

   [62] New York State Soc'y of Surgeons v. Axelrod,572 N.E.2d 605,609(N.Y.1991).

   [63] Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,529 U.S.120,125-26(2000).

   [64] Slaughter-House Cases,83 U.S.(16 Wall.)36(1872).

   [65] Herbert Hovenkamp, Technology, Politics, and Regulated Monopoly: An American Historical Perspective,62 TEX. L. REV.1263,1297-1301(1984).

   [66] Slaughter-House Cases,83 U.S.(16 Wall.) pp.59-60.

   [67] James W. Fox, Jr., Re-readings and Misreadings: Slaughter-House, Privileges or Immunities, and Section Five Enforcement Powers,91 KY. L.J.67,68-69(2002); Robert J. Kaczorowski, The Chase Court and Fundamental Rights: A Watershed in American Constitutionalism,21 N. KY. L. REv.151,174-91(1993); Robert J. Kaczorowski, Revolutionary Constitutionalism in the Era of the Civil War and Reconstruction,61 N.Y.U. L. REV.863,937-38(1986).

   [68] Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.,272 U.S.365,394-96(1926).

[69] City of New York, Building Zone Resolution (July 25,1916), available at http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cphl/history/laws/ny-index.(点击此处阅读下一页)

    进入专题: 公共卫生法   公共卫生法治   公共卫生法学  

本文责编:陈冬冬
发信站:爱思想(http://www.aisixiang.com),栏目:天益学术 > 法学 > 宪法学与行政法学
本文链接:http://www.aisixiang.com/data/133250.html

0 推荐

在方框中输入电子邮件地址,多个邮件之间用半角逗号(,)分隔。

爱思想(aisixiang.com)网站为公益纯学术网站,旨在推动学术繁荣、塑造社会精神。
凡本网首发及经作者授权但非首发的所有作品,版权归作者本人所有。网络转载请注明作者、出处并保持完整,纸媒转载请经本网或作者本人书面授权。
凡本网注明“来源:XXX(非爱思想网)”的作品,均转载自其它媒体,转载目的在于分享信息、助推思想传播,并不代表本网赞同其观点和对其真实性负责。若作者或版权人不愿被使用,请来函指出,本网即予改正。
Powered by aisixiang.com Copyright © 2022 by aisixiang.com All Rights Reserved 爱思想 京ICP备12007865号-1 京公网安备11010602120014号.
工业和信息化部备案管理系统