Individual Liberty and Opting Out of Mosquito Control

Abstract: As climate change influences the prevalence of mosquitos, vector-borne illnesses such as West Nile Virus, Lyme disease, and Eastern Equine Encephalitis have increasing impact on the health of U.S. populations. On expert recommendations from health bodies such as the Centers for Disease Control and World Health Organization, many communities have considered implementing mosquito control techniques, including environmental modification and aerial sprays. Based on community concerns regarding potential impacts on pollinator and human health, opt-out polices have been considered for the most effective intervention, aerial spraying. However, these interventions are unlike other disease prevention public health interventions, such as vaccines or water fluoridation. Whereas one can opt-out of vaccines or water fluoridation without significantly impacting others’ ability to receive the intervention, opting out of mosquito control measures implies that many others will fail to also receive the benefit associated with the intervention, even if they want it. One person’s defection from the public good can undermine the achievement of the good for everyone.

We argue that opt-out policies for mosquito control intervention significantly undermine their efficacy and allow preventable vulnerabilities to vector-borne illness. Further, while allowing opt-outs may seem to preserve individual liberty and the right to say no, it also limits others’ ability to use their own individual liberties. We argue that individual liberty is best preserved by compelling participation in mosquito control interventions. Thus, as climate change continues to make mosquito-borne illness more prevalent, public health agencies should opt out of opt-out policies.

Parker Crutchfield – Professor, Medical Ethics, Humanities, and Law, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine