New USA policy to jail sick people!

crazylegs32 · Post by **crazylegs32** » 04 Apr 2007 22:27

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly ... 80,00.html

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 05 Apr 2007 09:03

That's sickening. They can't do that to him... Or anyone else in that condition. Yes, you must keep the quarantined, but not in that manner. That's in so many violations of rights... how can they do that?

There's no reason to take away his TV, computer, cell phone, or anything else like that. Or to not let him bathe...

This just pisses me off.

Cass · Post by **Cass** » 05 Apr 2007 10:38

County health authorities obtained a court order to lock him up as a danger to the public because he failed to take precautions to avoid infecting others.

This is outrageous. Obviously it is a problem if he is posing a danger to others by not taking the necessary precautions. But I don't understand how a court has the right to lock someone up indefinitely because they failed to take these precautions. The courts/health authorities could have chosen to deal with this situation in a better, more humain way. Quarantine, hospitalization, or even house arrest would have been more feasable options.

What are they gonna do, throw everyone with a contageous illness in jail?

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 05 Apr 2007 11:18

To protect the freedom/saftey of the population the freedoms of some must suffer.

The freedom of the individual is more important than the freedom/saftey of a society.

These are the two sides to this argument. In this particular case the first one seems more reasonable.

If this man was not taking the neccesary steps to ensure the safety of the people around him, he is posing the exact same threat as a murderer. Jail is definently not the best option, but if he is willing to compromise the safety of those around him by not doing something as simple as wearing a mask, quarentine or house arrest might not be enough to stop his irresopnsibility. Most contagious people take percautions to prevent further infecting the populance......

County health authorities obtained a court order to lock him up as a danger to the public because he failed to take precautions to avoid infecting others.

Example: What if someone went around having unprtotected sex with many different partners, with the full knowledge that they have HIV and are likely infecting those people? IMO they are a criminal.

Not enough detail is presented in the article, but I'm sure they wouldn't have put him in jail if he was not endangering those around him. I also beleive there is some sensationalism going on here. Why would they take away his TV? Ockmons Razor dictates that the simplest explination is usually the correct one, and in this case the simplest explination is that either Fox News or the mans Lawyers are lying about some of the details, or that because of the mans own bad behaviour the TV was removed.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 05 Apr 2007 11:39

Slowsis wrote:To protect the freedom/saftey of the population the freedoms of some must suffer.

The freedom of the individual is more important than the freedom/saftey of a society.

These are the two sides to this argument. In this particular case the first one seems more reasonable.

If this man was not taking the neccesary steps to ensure the safety of the people around him, he is posing the exact same threat as a murderer. Jail is definently not the best option, but if he is willing to compromise the safety of those around him by not doing something as simple as wearing a mask, quarentine or house arrest might not be enough to stop his irresopnsibility. Most contagious people take percautions to prevent further infecting the populance......
County health authorities obtained a court order to lock him up as a danger to the public because he failed to take precautions to avoid infecting others.

Example: What if someone went around having unprtotected sex with many different partners, with the full knowledge that they have HIV and are likely infecting those people? IMO they are a criminal.

Not enough detail is presented in the article, but I'm sure they wouldn't have put him in jail if he was not endangering those around him. I also beleive there is some sensationalism going on here. Why would they take away his TV? Ockmons Razor dictates that the simplest explination is usually the correct one, and in this case the simplest explination is that either Fox News or the mans Lawyers are lying about some of the details, or that because of the mans own bad behaviour the TV was removed.

If this man was not taking the neccesary steps to ensure the safety of the people around him, he is posing the exact same threat as a murderer. Jail is definently not the best option, but if he is willing to compromise the safety of those around him by not doing something as simple giving up smoking, quarentine or house arrest might not be enough to stop his irresopnsibility. Few smokers take percautions to prevent further killing of the populance......

Same fuckin' thing... If they're gonna lock up a guy who unwillingly has a contagious disease, then they should lock up every fucker, that smokes in public.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 05 Apr 2007 11:45

Now, obviously, this proposal is completely obsurd. But it's just to point out, just how obsurd it is, to lock up someone that was infected with a contagious disease.

I do believe that public smoking, anywhere that's public, should be illegal. If you wanna smoke, do it in your home. That way I'm not sucking you toxic exhalent.

However, someone that has a contagious disease, should be placed on house arrest, or hospitalized. Not locked up in a stone chamber with nothing to do but go insane and bang your head on the wall.

I just can't express in words, just how fucking wrong this is.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 05 Apr 2007 11:54

Interesting story. If you're interested in a little historical context, check out this little story >>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoid_Mary

By the way, Switch, lets try not to trivialize this with comparisons to smoking. Tuberculosis is an infectious diseast, an ancient deadly scourge that human-kind was fortunate enough to have relatively recently found a cure for. Now there is a new, uncurable form of this disease that is easily transmitted to others, and I think we have to take some very serious precautions to keep this from spreading around. I'm not saying that this guy's treatment is entirely correct. I'm just saying, lets give this some real, reasonable consideration, not some knee-jerk response like "its not fair! They might as well lock up all the smokers!"

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 05 Apr 2007 12:42

Switch Kicker wrote:Now, obviously, this proposal is completely obsurd. But it's just to point out, just how obsurd it is, to lock up someone that was infected with a contagious disease.

I do believe that public smoking, anywhere that's public, should be illegal. If you wanna smoke, do it in your home. That way I'm not sucking you toxic exhalent.

However, someone that has a contagious disease, should be placed on house arrest, or hospitalized. Not locked up in a stone chamber with nothing to do but go insane and bang your head on the wall.

I just can't express in words, just how fucking wrong this is.

Empty argument.

They would lock up a smoker if they were endangering others health in a way comparable to the dangers of TB. Smoking while walking down the street is going to have extremely limited effects on non-smokers, and when put into comparison while vehicle emissions and industrial air pollution, is insubstantial to the point of not being worth mentioning. On the otherhand.......

Wiki wrote:Tuberculosis (abbreviated as TB for Tubercle Bacillus) is a common and deadly infectious disease

Switch wrote:Not locked up in a stone chamber with nothing to do but go insane and bang your head on the wall.

Read the second part of my post. Logic is beautiful.

Slowsis wrote:Why would they take away his TV? Ockmons Razor dictates that the simplest explination is usually the correct one, and in this case the simplest explination is that either Fox News or the mans Lawyers are lying about some of the details, or that because of the mans own bad behaviour the TV was removed.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 05 Apr 2007 12:47

Did nobody read until the end of the article? If you had you would have seen this.....

County health officials and Daniels' lawyer, Robert Blecher, would not discuss details of the case. But in general, England said the county would not force someone into quarantine unless the patient could not or would not follow doctor's orders.

"It's very uncommon that someone would both not want to take treatment and will willingly put others at risk," England said. "It's only those very uncommon incidents where we have to use legal authority through the courts to isolate somebody."

What if he was putting your family and friends at risk, by not co-operating with his doctor? Would you not want him away from your loved ones?

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 05 Apr 2007 13:30

Slowsis wrote:Did nobody read until the end of the article? If you had you would have seen this.....
County health officials and Daniels' lawyer, Robert Blecher, would not discuss details of the case. But in general, England said the county would not force someone into quarantine unless the patient could not or would not follow doctor's orders.

"It's very uncommon that someone would both not want to take treatment and will willingly put others at risk," England said. "It's only those very uncommon incidents where we have to use legal authority through the courts to isolate somebody."
What if he was putting your family and friends at risk, by not co-operating with his doctor? Would you not want him away from your loved ones?

House arrest damnit. Unless he is deliberately trying trying to infect others, then he's not really committing a crime. Therefore, he is not a criminal and should not be treated as one. He could be in denial, oblivious to the severity of the situation, or something like that. Either way, this is completely unjust, and I don't believe it's required. House arrest would do just fine for this.

Yes, the comparison I made was kinda unfair, however I believe it's the same concept. Except one category is innocent, and the other is guilty.

But w/e, this is just my opinion on it. There's the fact that it's in violation of his rights, but it's just my opinion that there's a much better way of dealing with this.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 06 Apr 2007 19:40

Surely the reason we have laws are to protect society and for the benefit of society.

Is this man harming society? Yes. Should society do something to protect itself? Of course.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 07 Apr 2007 09:00

Jeremy wrote:Surely the reason we have laws are to protect society and for the benefit of society.

Is this man harming society? Yes. Should society do something to protect itself? Of course.

The man is part of the society as well, and therefore he should be protected too.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 07 Apr 2007 10:33

A classic conundrum of human rights, to say the least.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 10 Apr 2007 07:41

Switch Kicker wrote:
Jeremy wrote:Surely the reason we have laws are to protect society and for the benefit of society.

Is this man harming society? Yes. Should society do something to protect itself? Of course.
The man is part of the society as well, and therefore he should be protected too.

Nobody is suggesting he be killed, or locked up forever. All they're suggesting is that he be locked up until he can either learn to take his treatment, dies of his disease, or is cured. It's not like he doesn't have a choice, but it would be unacceptable to put so many people needlessly at risk by not taking action.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 10 Apr 2007 08:41

Jeremy wrote:
Switch Kicker wrote:
Jeremy wrote:Surely the reason we have laws are to protect society and for the benefit of society.

Is this man harming society? Yes. Should society do something to protect itself? Of course.
The man is part of the society as well, and therefore he should be protected too.
Nobody is suggesting he be killed, or locked up forever. All they're suggesting is that he be locked up until he can either learn to take his treatment, dies of his disease, or is cured. It's not like he doesn't have a choice, but it would be unacceptable to put so many people needlessly at risk by not taking action.

That didn't even address what I said. The point is, it's in complete violation of his rights and he's not breaking any laws of any kind, and therefore should be quarantined, not locked up like a criminal. It's almost inhuman, what they're doing.

Also, being locked up forever and being locked up until you die, really doesn't bear much difference. Yes, they mean completely different things, but they are both quite equally cruel.

Why do I feel like you're arguing with me about this, simply because it's me, Jeremy?

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 10 Apr 2007 08:46

Jeremy wrote:
Switch Kicker wrote:
Jeremy wrote:It's not like he doesn't have a choice...

How do you know this? I doubt they're going to let him go once he says, "Ok, fine I'll put my mask on." I don't know about you, but I would've decided to comply with rules way before 2 months pasted while in a plain room with, maybe a bed. I think it was 2 months anyway... Too lazy to go back to check again. XD

Sorry for double post by the way.

mizua_r · Post by **mizua_r** » 10 Apr 2007 11:49

I completely agree that he should be quarantined, but they probabely could have found a better way to take care of the issue. You'd be surprised how many problems like this can be resolved more easily and effectively if a little thought is put into alternative resolutions.

ObArA'BaRs · Post by **ObArA'BaRs** » 10 Apr 2007 19:56

thats fucked up, but its for the safty of the people. Right now our country really cant give him some luxery but i completly agree that he deserves a much better quarantined area than that. That right there is just a lowsy exuse

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 12 Apr 2007 14:27

What should be the response to deadly and contagious diseases?

Please give an answer that takes into account the current infrastructure, and assumes the problem is now (ie. building a quarantined containment building is obviously not a solution).

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 12 Apr 2007 18:39

Jeremy wrote:What should be the response to deadly and contagious diseases?

Please give an answer that takes into account the current infrastructure, and assumes the problem is now (ie. building a quarantined containment building is obviously not a solution).

Ok... you are just arguing this because it's me... Because that's the most, pointless question I've ever seen you ask. And you know that answer...

If he was permitted to live his life normally as long as he used things such as gloves and masks (it stated in the article that the only reason he was detained was because he wasn't wearing the mask/gloves), then there is no need for an extreme quarantine. Which partially voids out "deadly and contagious". Deadly, maybe, contagious, only to a degree. By using a mask/gloves/etc, he's allowed to live among the general public.

By deciding to not to use these things, he was forced to be put into a quarantined environment, however, that environment, is a shitty one. And completely inhumane.

As I've already said, house arrest, or confinement to a hospital would do just fine. Not this jail cell bull shit.

Should we start throwing people in jail that go to the old-folks home when they have the flu? Or how about banning people that are sick from going to the Dollar Store? Because that's a hot spot for old people who get sick easy, and are at higher risk of dying form common sicknesses.