On Friday, April 18, 2003, at 09:21 AM, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/18/science/sciencespecial/ 18INFE.html?ex=1051243200&en=c0c66bc035169a16&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
They put a police guard on one patient at a hospital and have hired private security investigators to check on people in isolation.
"This is a time when the needs of a community outweigh those of a single person." Ontario's health minister, Tony Clement
I will make what some here will probably think is a totalitarian sentiment: under extreme conditions, I support quarantine measures. Better yet, those seeking to avoid a disease should self-quarantine or isolate themselves. Or wear masks (I have a plentiful supply of 3M N95 respirators, for example...better to buy them when they are dirt cheap, ahead of an emergency, than to be scrambling to buy them later). A person who is known to be communicable is committing a kind of assault by spraying germs around. (Assuming the medical condition is as described.) Though it is a serious step to limit a person's freedom to move about on public property, this is one of the few cases, along with imprisonment for criminal convictions, where it is justified. I will gladly make this trade of liberties: * roll back all of the bullshit laws designed to protect people from themselves: laws against smoking, laws against other drugs, laws banning sexual practices. And get rid of 90% of all government functions and staff in general: roll things back to 1925 levels, in terms of percentages. (I would favor reducing government further, but 1925 levels would be a great start.) in exchange for: * infectious, communicable diseases may need quarantines Provided the quarantine is only for medical reasons, and is never used to isolate people as punishment, for political reasons, for economic reasons, etc., it's an extreme measure which is consistent, I believe with the Constitution. (And with anarchocapitalist principles, if we had such a system: one's insurers would likely insist on quarantine as a condition for continued coverage, for example.) A larger principle is that those who are in risky locations and/or social situations pay for their increased risk. So a person in Kansas should not pay for my earthquake risks, nor I for his tornado risks. A person living in Oregon, where essentially few natural risks exist, would be rewarded for his choice and a person living in hurricane country would be punished for his choice. Likewise, with disease. --Tim May "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." --John Stuart Mill