A Legal Analysis of Emergency Powers Given in Mississippi Law Regarding Pandemics and Bioterrorism
Executive Summary
PEER prepared this report in response to legislative concerns that have arisen over the state’s authority to respond to possible avian flu pandemics or acts of bioterrorism.
In reviewing Mississippi law regarding emergency responses to these occurrences, PEER used the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act as a criterion for evaluating the adequacy of Mississippi’s emergency response laws. The model act is a comprehensive model statute that was developed by the Center for Law and Public Health at the Georgetown University Law Center and Johns Hopkins University after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The model act provides for emergency planning; the investigation of occurrences of diseases; the declaration of health emergencies; the provision of technical support by state agencies to stricken areas; the securing and, if necessary, taking of property by state entities for the protection of public health; the mandatory medical examination and vaccination of persons suspected of being infected; and the dissemination of information about health emergencies.
Critics of the model act have expressed concern over its broad scope, the allowance for the taking of property, and the possible infringement of privacy rights.
PEER notes that although Mississippi laws are generally sufficient to respond to such emergencies, in some areas incremental change would enable a more effective response to emergencies, such are those that could be posed by a pandemic or act of bioterrorism.
Respecting pandemics, state law at present does not include such in the definition of a natural emergency, thereby creating some concerns that the Governor might not have the legal power to respond to the fullest extent allowable under current emergency management laws. Another area of weakness is that present law does not require veterinarians and pharmacists to provide information to the State Board of Health on certain diseases.
Further weaknesses include no provisions dealing with the licensure of out-of-state medical professionals who assist in the event of emergencies, no state control over the management or disposal of human remains, and no specific authority over materials and property that might become contaminated.
PEER recommends changes in legislation to correct these minor deficiencies.