The case has made a great change in the public health sector as it gave the government and public sector specific powers to infringe the personal rights of the individual when his/her health endangers the lives of other citizens. In addition, the case gave reference to other similar issues that followed an aspect that has enabled the public health sector to enforce its mandate of public vaccination. Also, since then individuals have become aware of mandates of this sector in enforcing the health policies. This has reduced resistance from the public. The case has streamlined the service delivery in the health sector as it made clear that individual interests cannot affect the interest of the rest of the public (Goodman, 2007).
If the case was to be heard today, I think it would be different. This is because the government has emphasized much on safeguarding the interest of every citizen, and small issues that were ignored could be taken into consideration. In addition, the court would give more emphasis on the individual rights that are guaranteed in the constitution before coming up with the conclusion. With increased technology and research, I believe the court would give a more detailed verdict with specific limits that the government is to undertake in enforcing immunization (Gostin & Milbank Memorial Fund, 2002).
One of the cases where there is friction between the law and public health sector is government efforts to promote tobacco control. Despite the government effort, cases in the court have failed to gain ground because of the constitution rights that are entitled to the public, which are becoming very hard to ignore.