Values and disvalues underlying mandatory screening

Mandatory screening for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), illegal drug use, and hypersusceptibility to certain chemicals or materials in the workplace has generated a lot of debate among various philosophers in recent years. Critics of screening argue that in most cases, values such as privacy and confidentiality would be needlessly violated. Supporters, on the other hand, contend that the safety and health of society subordinate all other values. It seems that the disputing parties are not entirely clear as to just what it is they are disagreeing about. The goal of this work is to make clear the source of the disagreements. This is accomplished by focusing on two concepts which underlie the screening debates—coercion and freedom. Mandating that a person undergo screening constitutes coercion, and coercion is often thought to be prima facie wrong as it intentionally interferes with a person's freedom of choice. This work seeks to answer the following question: "Even though coercion is evil, can it be justified in particular cases of screening?" The answer is that required screening is justified only if the harm prevented or the benefits gained by the individual or society clearly outweigh the disvalue of diminished freedom. Through a series of illustrations, it was concluded that there are very few cases in which we can justify mandatory screening.