Beauchamp, D, What is public about public health?, Health Affairs 1983, 2: 76–87.Google ScholarPubMed

Sontag, S, Illness as metaphor, New York: Vintage Books, 1979.Google Scholar

Krim, M, AIDS: The challenge to science and medicine, in AIDS: The emerging ethical dilemmas, Hastings Center Report 1985, 15 (supp): 2–7.Google Scholar

Centers for Disease Control, Provisional Public Health Service recommendations for screening donated blood and plasma for antibody to the virus causing acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports 1985, 34: 1–4.Google Scholar

See Altman, D, AIDS in the mind of America, Garden City: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1986; Black, D, The plague years: A chronicle of AIDS, the epidemic of our times, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1986; Patton, C, Sex and germs: The politics of AIDS, Boston: South End Press, 1986; Afraids, , The New Republic, October 14, 1985: 7-8, 10.Google Scholar

See Dolgin, J, AIDS: Social meanings and legal ramifications, Hofstra Law Review 1985, 14: 193–209; Patton, , supra note 5.Google Scholar

Brandt, A, No magic bullet: A social history of venereal disease in the United States since 1880, New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.Google Scholar

See, e.g., Cal. Health & Safety Code §3123; Fla. Stat. Ann. §381.231; N.J. Rev. Stat. §26: 4–15; N.Y. Pub. Health Law §2101(1); Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 4419b-1.Google Scholar

State v. Wordin, 56 Conn. 216, 228–29, 14 A. 801 (1887).Google Scholar

Id. See also, Smythe v. State, 86 So. 870 (Miss. 1921); McGuire v. Amyx, 297 S.W. 968 (Mo. 1927). See generally Review of court decisions pertaining to morbidity reports, Public Health Reports 1928, 43: 3369–77.Google Scholar

Note, The constitutional rights of AIDS carriers, Harvard Law Review 1986, 99: 1274–92, 1288.Google Scholar

See, e.g., Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111 1/2, §22; Ill. Rules and Regulations for Control of Communicable Disease, 10 Ill. Reg. (Emergency Rules, Effective 1/3/86).Google Scholar

See, e.g., Cal. Admin. Code tit. 17, §2503; 28 Pa. Admin. Code §27.1 (includes as a “reportable disease” any unusual or group expression of illness that, in the opinion of the department of health, may be a public health emergency).Google Scholar

See, e.g., N.Y. Admin. Code tit. 10, §24–1.1 (creating a separate section under the state sanitary code requiring the reporting of all known and suspected cases of AIDS).Google Scholar

E.g., Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 4445d (tests yielding evidence suggestive of syphilis or gonorrhea must be reported); Cal. Admin. Code tit. 17, §2505 (person in charge of lab must report evidence suggestive of diphtheria, gonorrhea, syphilis, tuberculosis, or typhoid); Colo. Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Communicable Disease Control §3, (labs required to report repeatedly positive ELISA tests or confirmatory Western blot test); Fla. Admin. Code §10D-3.66 (all lab records suggestive of any notifiable disease are to be made available upon request to state or county health personnel); Ill. Rules and Regulations for Control of Communicable Disease ch. VI (labs must file weekly reports on test results reactive for specified sexually transmitted disease); N.J. Admin. Code §8:57–1.10 (all lab results indicating or suggesting the existence of a reportable disease or the outbreak of disease must be reported); N.Y. Pub. Health Law §2102 (lab results indicating the presence of a communicable disease must be reported); 28 PA. Admin. Code §27.22. (test results indicative of listed diseases or conditions, including viral infections, must be reported).Google Scholar

Compare, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 4419b-1 (Communicable Disease Control and Prevention Act) with Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 4445d (Venereal Disease Act); and N.J. Rev. Stat §26: 4–15 (communicable disease), with N.J. Rev. Stat §26: 4–38 (venereal disease).Google Scholar

See, e.g., Cal. Admin. Code tit. 17, §2500 et seq.; N.J. Rev. Stat. §26: 4–15 (requires identification by name, age, sex, exact location of the individual ill or infected with disease, home address and telephone number of the individual, date of onset of illness, and other information as required by the state department of health).Google Scholar

“Incidence” is the rate of occurrence of new cases of a particular illness in the population being studied; “prevalence” is the percent of the population being studied that is affected with a particular disease at a given time. Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged), Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, 1981.Google Scholar

For a review of physicians' objections to compulsory disease-reporting, see Shall venereal diseases be reportable to the board of health?, New York State Journal of Medicine 1911, 11: 311–12; Cleere, R et al., Physicians' attitudes toward venereal disease reporting: A survey by the National Opinion Research Center, Journal of the American Medical Association 1967, 202: 941–46; Rosenberg A, Compulsory disclosure statutes. New England Journal of Medicine 1969, 280: 1287-88. But sec Reporting venereal disease, Journal of the American Medical Association 1967, 202: 981-82.Google Scholar

Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 602 (1977).Google Scholar

Id. at 600. While the constitutional right to privacy remains imprecisely defined, the Court identified two interests that might be implicated in the reporting of private medical information: the interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters and the interest in making important decisions independently.Google Scholar

See Note, Public health protection and the privacy of medical records, Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review 1981, 16: 265–304, at 294.Google Scholar

Whalen v. Roe, supra note 20 at 607 (Brennan, J., concurring opinion). Justice Brennan notes that were the statute to amount to a deprivation of constitutionally protected privacy interests, it could be upheld only upon a showing that it was necessary to promote a compelling state interest.Google Scholar

N.Y. Pub. Health Law §206.Google Scholar

Colorado Rules and Regulations for Communicable Disease Control, Rule 2.8.Google Scholar

Compare, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 4445d, §5.01 (venereal disease confidentiality statute), with Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 4419b-1, §3.06 (communicable disease confidentiality statute).Google Scholar

Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 111, §119 (providing that all hospitals, dispensary, lab, or morbidity reports and records pertaining to venereal disease are not considered public records, and may not be divulged except upon proper judicial order).Google Scholar

U.S. Public Health Service, Coolfont report: A PHS plan for the prevention and control of AIDS and the AIDS virus, Public Health Reports 1986, 101: 341–48 (hereinafter cited as “Coolfont”).Google Scholar

See, e.g., 243 Code of Massachusetts Regulations §300.200.Google Scholar

Cal. Admin. Code tit. 17, §2503.Google Scholar

Connecticut Department of Health Services, Circular Letter #18–26 (dated October 1, 1983) (Mandatory Reporting of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome [AIDS]).Google Scholar

Correspondence from Stephen H. King, M.D., staff director of the Health Program Office, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, to county and district health personnel (dated August 18, 1983).Google Scholar

25 Tex. Admin. Code §97.4(b).Google Scholar

The CDC defines AIDS as a reliably diagnosed disease that is at least moderately indicative of an underlying cellular immunodeficiency when no known cause for reduced resistance to disease is present. See Centers for Disease Control, Revision of the case definition of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome for national reporting—United States, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports 1986, 34: 373–74; Selik R, Haverkos H, Curran J, Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS): Trends in the United States 1978–1982, American Journal of Medicine 1984, 76: 493–500; Jaffe H, Bregman D, Selik R, Acquired immune deficiency syndrome in the United States: The first 1,000 cases, Journal of Infectious Disease 1983, 148: 339–45; Centers for Disease Control, Update on acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)—United States, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports 1982, 31: 507–14. Moderately indicative diseases include Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, toxoplasmosis, candidiasis, herpes simplex virus, and Kaposi's sarcoma.Google Scholar

See supra note 21 and Note, supra note 22.Google Scholar

See Note, supra note 11 at 1288.Google Scholar

See Orland, L, Wise, S, The AIDS epidemic: A constitutional conundrum, Hofstra Law Review 1985, 14: 137–62; Altman, , supra note 5 at 58–81; Black, , supra note 5 at 204-8.Google Scholar

A “carrier” is defined as an infected person or animal that harbors a specific infectious agent in the absence of discernible clinical disease and serves as a potential source or reservoir of infection. 25 Tex. Admin. Code §97.1.Google Scholar

Colorado Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Communicable Disease Control, rule 3.Google Scholar

Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, South Carolina, and Wisconsin explicitly require reporting of positive HIV-antibody test results, while regulations in Kentucky, Minnesota, and Mississippi would seem to require the reporting of such results. Curran, W, Gostin, L, Clark, M, Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: Legal and regulatory policy, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1986: 330.Google Scholar

See Curran, J et al., The epidemiology of AIDS: Current status and future prospects, Science 1985, 229: 1352–57. It is estimated that for every individual who is diagnosed with AIDS, between fifty and a hundred others have been exposed to the virus.Google ScholarPubMed

Mandatory antibody testing has been instituted in the military. U.S. Department of Defense, Policy on identification, surveillance and disposition of military personnel infected with human T-lymphotropic virus type III (HTLV-III), October 1985. For a discussion of mandatory testing or screening programs see Barry, MJ, Cleary, P, Fineberg, H, Screening for HIV infection: Risks, benefits, and the burden of proof, Law, Medicine & Health Care 1986, 14(5–6): 259–67.Google ScholarPubMed

Centers for Disease Control, Update: Human T-lymphotropic virus type III/lymphadenopathy-associated virus antibody testing at alternate sites, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports 1985, 34: 477–78.Google Scholar

Curran, W et al., supra note 40 at 331.Google Scholar

Petricciani, J, Licensed tests for antibody to human T-lymphotropic virus type III: Sensitivity and specificity, Annals of Internal Medicine 1985, 103: 726–29; Schorr, B et al., Prevalence of HTLV-III antibody in American blood donors, New England Journal of Medicine 1985, 313: 384-85.Google ScholarPubMed

See CDC, supra note 43.Google Scholar

Since Colorado instituted its requirement for the reporting of positive test results, voluntary testing at clinics for gay men has reportedly dropped significantly. Byron P, The hidden risks of antibody screening: This is not only a test, Village Voice, May 27, 1986: 29–30.Google Scholar

Although there is currently no effective treatment that is widely available, the experimental drug azidothymidine (AZT) has shown promise in clinical trials. The drug is not a cure but seems to have prolonged the life of some patients with AIDS who received it in the early stages of illness. Limited data suggest that the drug may also offer some benefits to patients with AIDS-related complex. Eckholm E, AIDS test drug prolongs lives in some cases: Wider availability set but pill is not a cure, New York Times, September 20, 1986: 7, col. 1; Fain N, Staying alive: A new drug may make AIDS manageable, Village Voice, May 27, 1986: 23–25. If an effective treatment were generally available, there might be a stronger argument for the reporting of positive results as a means of identifying individuals who might benefit from treatment. It would seem, however, that encouragement of voluntary testing, coupled with education and counseling, would serve the same goal in a less intrusive manner.Google Scholar

See California Department of Health Services, Control of communicable diseases in California, 1983: 454.Google Scholar

Brandt, A supra note 7 at 150–51.Google Scholar

Id. See also Rosenberg, , supra note 19.Google Scholar

Provisions might be proposed for mandatory testing of individuals where there is cause to believe that a person has been exposed; in the past such testing provisions were most typically applied to prostitutes. See, e.g., People v. Strautz, 54 N.E.2d 441, 444 (Ill. 1944); Ex Parte Company, 139 N.E. 204 (Ohio 1921).Google Scholar

Venereal disease control statutes often provide for the detention and treatment of persons found to test positively for venereal disease. See, e.g., Cal. Health & Safety Code §2302.Google Scholar

Letter from Fred, Wolf, director of the Colorado STD Control Program, to William Curran, dated January 28, 1986 (discussing statutes applicable to AIDS).Google Scholar

California Department of Health Services, Acquired immune deficiency syndrome in California: A prescription for meeting the needs 1990, 1986: 29–30.Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

U.S. Public Health Service, Facts about AIDS, August 1985.Google Scholar

Although there is some disparity in definition between states, we are defining “isolation” as the separation of an infected person from noninfected persons for the period of communicability; “quarantine” is the segregation of healthy persons believed exposed to the infectious agent for the period of incubation.Google Scholar

See Coolfont, , supra note 28.Google Scholar

Morganthau, T et al., Future shock: The AIDS epidemic, Newsweek, November 24, 1986: 30–39, at 32-33.Google Scholar

New York Times, March 23, 1985.Google Scholar

Fain, N, AIDS goes straight, Village Voice, May 15, 1985: 30.Google Scholar

Talbot, D, Bush, D, At risk, Mother Jones, April 1985: 30.Google Scholar

Duncan, R, Commentary: Public policy and the AIDS epidemic, Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 1986, 2: 169–71.Google Scholar

Officials have attempted to detain individuals believed to be infected and “spreading” AIDS but have lacked the authority under such circumstances to quarantine. See Prostitute seized in Chicago is said to have spread AIDS, New York Times, December 26, 1985: A21, col. 6, cited in Parmet, W, AIDS and quarantine: The revival of an archaic doctrine, Hofstra Law Review 1985, 14: 53–90, at 74-75, n. 144Google Scholar

Letter from Bernstein, Robert, Texas commissioner of health, to William Curran and Larry Gostin, dated January 22, 1986 (regarding legislation, regulations, guidelines, and court decisions relating to AIDS).Google Scholar

Banta, B, AIDS isolation plan withdrawn, Austin-American Statesman, January 17, 1986: 1, col. 1.Google Scholar

See Comment, AIDS: A new reason to regulate homosexuality?, Journal of Contemporary Law 1984, 11: 315–43 at 340-43.Google Scholar

There was disagreement about the legal consequences of the initiative, which would have defined AIDS as an infectious, contagious, and communicable disease. Although the department of health services believed that the measure would have little impact, others argued that it would mandate the use of quarantine and isolation powers. See Memorandum from Sharon Mosely, staff attorney to the Department of Health Services Office of Legal Services, to the AIDS section, dated March 11, 1986 (regarding the legal impact of Initiative Measure 64); American Civil Liberties Union, List of expected consequences of the LaRouche initiative, dated February 23, 1986.Google Scholar

Freund, E, The police power: Public policy and constitutional rights, Chicago: Callaghan, 1904: iii. See also, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). See generally, Comment, Police power in Illinois: The regulation of private conduct, University of Illinois Law Foundation 1972: 158-76.Google Scholar

State authority to quarantine for public health purposes has been recognized since at least 1824. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (1824). It is generally conceded that the power of the state to enact and enforce quarantines is “beyond question.” Compagnie Française de Navigation à Vapeur, 186 U.S. 380, 387 (1902). For a thorough discussion of the history and application of quarantine laws, see Parmet W, supra note 65; see also Burris S, Fear itself: AIDS, herpes and public health decisions, Yale Law and Policy Review 1985, 3: 479–518 (providing an analytic framework for reviewing the evolution of public health law cases, including quarantine).Google Scholar

Courts have traditionally applied a two-tiered analysis of equal protection and due process challenges to legislation. Legislation that does not affect the exercise of a fundamental right or discriminate based on a suspect classification is subject to minimal scrutiny, and will be upheld so long as it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Legislation that does rest upon a suspect classification or infringe upon a fundamental right will be subject to strict scrutiny, and will be upheld only if shown to be necessary to promote a compelling state interest that cannot be achieved in a less restrictive manner. See generally Tribe L, American constitutional law, Mineola: Foundation Press, 1978: 994–1002. Where legislation employs a classification apparently based on irrational prejudice, the court may reject it even while purportedly applying only minimal scrutiny; there may be a third tier of analysis, used under circumstances deemed to warrant heightened scrutiny but not meeting the test for strict scrutiny. See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 105 S. Ct. 3249 (1985).Google Scholar

Tribe, L, supra note 72.Google Scholar

See Parmet, W, supra note 65 at 82–87.Google Scholar

Boston Globe, February 24, 1985: 1.Google Scholar

Obviously, it would be impossible to identify “all” gay men in the United Sutes, and the types of inquiries or surveillance of individuals that might be proposed as a means of doing so are ethically repugnant. Assuming that an individual did not acknowledge that he was homosexual, would public health officials be allowed to question his neighbors or put him under surveillance in hopes of determining his sexual preference? Even if such repugnant practices were somehow upheld, the practical problems of detaining hundreds of thousands of individuals would make such a general quarantine totally unworkable.Google Scholar

See Altman, , supra note 5 at 65–70; AIDS: What is to be done?, Harpers, October 1985: 39–52, at 43.Google Scholar

See City of Cleburne, supra note 72.Google Scholar

See Jason, J, McDougal, J, Dixon, G, HTLV-III/LAV antibody and immune status of household contacts and sexual partners of persons with hemophilia, Journal of the American Medical Association 1986, 225: 212–15; Friedland, G et al., Lack of transmission of HTLV-III/LAV infection to household contacts of patients with AIDS or AIDS-related complex with oral candidiasis, New England Journal of Medicine 1986, 314: 344-49.Google Scholar

See Coolfont, supra note 28.Google Scholar

See Curran, W et al., supra note 40 at 248–50.Google Scholar

See Comment, supra note 68.Google Scholar

See Banta, supra note 67.Google Scholar

Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §193–221.Google Scholar

Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §19a–221(b).Google Scholar

Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §19a–221(e)–(m).Google Scholar

See, Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). See also Parmet, supra note 65 at 81.Google Scholar

There is some disagreement about what sexual practices fall within the boundaries of safe sex. Only recently in the United States have discussions in the general media switched from vague allusions to intimate contact involving the “exchange of bodily fluids” to identify the risk of sexual intercourse involving the exchange of blood and semen.Google Scholar

See Parmet, supra note 65 at 85.Google Scholar