“Breakthroughs in technologies, our knowledge of diseases and mutations, and advances in treatment options have been remarkable and have drastically reduced fatality rates from disease outbreaks. However, regardless of medical achievements, rapid changes in any field open the door to renewed debates over different laws and individual rights.”

Abstract: The coronavirus pandemic is the latest health issue to raise the question of government’s involvement (or interference) with an individual’s control over their own healthcare and medical treatment. In this article, the authors, two health care and professional liability attorneys, discuss the intersection of law and medicine with a review of medical mandates, the impact of advances in science and medicine, and where role of government to protect public health intersects (or collides) with personal healthcare choices. Their focus is on governmental response to the coronavirus pandemic, and not the recent landmark case dealing with choice. But add to the equation the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the “government as healthcare decision maker” is an issue that will be on the front burner for courts, policymakers, healthcare providers, patients, and attorneys for years to come.

How much authority do government agencies or even the judiciary have over the healthcare decisions of individuals? This question has been hotly contested in recent years, specifically with the emergence of COVID-19. Individuals often assume the practice of medicine and the enactment and enforcement of laws are separate and independent enterprises; that they remain fixed in their respective corners.

However, when we dive deeper into this issue and look at history and precedent, it is evident that the rights of individuals versus mandates of government in respect to healthcare has been going on for some time, and will continue for years to come.