Too far to prevent a spreading illness?

[Kristen]

A man was jailed for refusing to wear a mask while having TB.

He remains in solitary confinement without basic household privileges or items, though he hasn't committed a crime. There is no law that states you must wear a mask if you’ve contracted TB. Yes, that government is doing what it is the best interest of its people. However, there is certainly a better way to go about handling this ordeal than to treat him as if he’s committed a crime. You could lock him in his own home or something. How fair is it to punish something because they’ve gotten an illness that can’t be helped? (I’m going to cross a line here.) We don’t stick everyone with HIV and STDs into confinement and those are [mostly] incurable diseases that spread like wildfire.

Though I believe that keeping him confined to the point where the TB could not spread, I also believe that the route in which they are taking to provide such precautions is horribly wrong. In this particular case, the man wasn’t out to spread TB to everyone he possibly could. No, it was just a small dispute that was taken far out of hand. It’s really not his fault, in any event. =|

So just where is the line between "for the good" and "out of control"?

T/C

[Ωmega]

Prison? Thats really stupid. If anything, they should've had him locked up in a hospital, or like you said, in his own home. Putting him in prison reaaaally isnt going to solve anything

[Korobi]

I agree that they may have gone a bit too far putting him in jail and all. But the man should have sense enough to be responsible and try to keep it from spreading.

[Kristen]

"PHOENIX, Arizona (AP) -- Behind the county hospital's tall cinderblock walls, a 27-year-old tuberculosis patient who spent years living in Russia sits in a jail cell equipped with a ventilation system that keeps germs from escaping.

Robert Daniels has been locked up indefinitely, perhaps for the rest of his life, since last July. But he has not been charged with a crime. Instead, he suffers from an extensively drug-resistant strain of tuberculosis, or XDR-TB. It is considered virtually untreatable."

They could keep germs from escaping from his home, too. Or from somewhere other than a jail cell. Quite frankly, I don't know why they haven't. If he has a family living in that home, I could understand that. But he could still be kept in another location.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Perfectly Justifiable. He is walking germ factory. He didn't take precautions to protect others from his disease. It's akin to walking around with revolver loaded with one bullet, spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger with the gun pointed at people as you walk down the street. If you want him to be formally charged... How about assault with a deadly weapon?

How fair is it to punish something because they’ve gotten an illness that can’t be helped? (I’m going to cross a line here.) We don’t stick everyone with HIV and STDs into confinement and those are [mostly] incurable diseases that spread like wildfire.

How fair is it to kill people out of ignorance? Are you going to be the one to tell a little girl that her father wouldn't have died if the man next door had only worn his mask when going outside?

And HIV and other STDs can only be spread if you swap bodily fluids with the diseased person, unlike TB which is spread through the air. So, it isn't a good analogy, unless you have a special case like a person who is aware they are HIV positive having unprotected sex with people who aren’t HIV positive without informing them. In which case, that person should be locked up too.

Also, re-reading the article: He's in a hospital ward, not a prison.

Also, a quote:

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."

[Kristen]

It's quite easy to spread HIV and STDs. Ask those who have contracted it.

I also said nothing about a prison. My "man is jailed" business is the title of the article itself.

Annnddd:

Though I believe that keeping him confined to the point where the TB could not spread...

That covers it my opinion, sure enough. I never said "LET'S HAVE HIM RUNNING AROUND", goodness no. But to be confined like a criminal for something he can't stop from having is ridiculous. And life for that? Even more so ridiculous.

[Kilawher Shazarade]

"Where I come from, the doctors don't wear masks," he said. "Plus, I was 26 years old, you know. Nobody told me how TB works and stuff."

Apparently, this guy was just confused - I think that he needs to stay in a hospital ward for the duration of his life OR if he agrees, to stay at home and always leave the house wearing a mask. Next time he does it, lock him up, quarantine and treat the areas he's been in and examine the people he's been in contact with. Though, I doubt he'd make the same mistake twice after fully comprehending the severity of it.

This needs to be discussed more by law officials - he wasn't aware of the risks in the first place.

[Kilawher Shazarade]

...

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

It's quite easy to spread HIV and STDs. Ask those who have contracted it.

HIV can only be spread by a few routes. Sexual Contact, Blood, and to a baby from the mother. It's completely safe to hang around with people with HIV, so long as you aren't swapping bodily fluids. A person with TB, however, spreads bacteria whenever they exhale. This is why solitary confinement isn't used for HIV carriers. As for the STDs... What part of Sexually Transmitted Disease don't you understand? Nor, other then HIV, am I aware of any STD that is both incurable and fatal.

[Eris]

Quarantine is the proven way of dealing with diseases like TB (besides medication, that is). Though, I don't see why he necessarily belongs in prison. Infectious disease wards at hospitals would probably be more suited to handle the situation. Chances are the prison staff's lack of medical education will end up actually spreading this disease.

[Mugetsu]

If he was in a hospital he might try to escape. Maybe they consider him a flight risk. It's not like a hospital is a very secure place. He can threated any orderly by saying "back up or I'll cough on you". Or when all else fails, just walk out. The it seems from the story this person has no regard for the lives and safety of others. As far as we know he may be purposely trying to spread the disease out of malice.

Either way this guy is causing a serious waste of taxpayer dollars. The money being spent on confining him could go to education or healthcare.

[Kristen]

If STDs/etc were so horribly difficult to contract as you say they is, thousands upon thousands of people wouldn't die every year because of them. On that matter, ALL STDs that are incurable eventually lead to death, quite miserably so. And as for transmiting through partners, there is a ridiculous number of people who don't tell their partners who have unprotected sex.

As TB goes through the air, it is not more or less "deadly" and "severe" than STDs of any type.


But this was all merely an example. =) It is not the base of this topic and therefore, shouldn't continue. I appreciate the input.

[Fetal Fetish]

Pfffft..Prison's not going to solve anything. Is it going to cure him? No. Further more, he didn't commit a felony or anything. Doing stuff like that proves how the government doesn't sometimes think things through enough.

[Eris]

If STDs/etc were so horribly difficult to contract as you say they is, thousands upon thousands of people wouldn't die every year because of them. On that matter, ALL STDs that are incurable eventually lead to death, quite miserably so. And as for transmiting through partners, there is a ridiculous number of people who don't tell their partners who have unprotected sex.

As TB goes through the air, it is not more or less "deadly" and "severe" than STDs of any type.

TB is way more contagious than any STD. All you need is to be in the same room as someone infected. You don't even have to stand close. This is a very nasty disease that I really wouldn't want to get wide spread again.

You don't get quarantined for STD:s because you can not have sex (in many countries, it's a felony to have sex knowing you carry a STD)--you, however, can't cease breathing.

Pfffft..Prison's not going to solve anything. Is it going to cure him? No. Further more, he didn't commit a felony or anything. Doing stuff like that proves how the government doesn't sometimes think things through enough.

It won't cure him--there is no cure, but it will prevent the spread of an incurable and very deadly and contagious disease.

[Mugetsu]

Pfffft..Prison's not going to solve anything. Is it going to cure him? No. Further more, he didn't commit a felony or anything. Doing stuff like that proves how the government doesn't sometimes think things through enough.

So what do you think they should do? Can you come up with a better solution that won't put the general public at risk from someone who almost seems intent on spreading TB?

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

If STDs/etc were so horribly difficult to contract as you say they is, thousands upon thousands of people wouldn't die every year because of them. On that matter, ALL STDs that are incurable eventually lead to death, quite miserably so. And as for transmiting through partners, there is a ridiculous number of people who don't tell their partners who have unprotected sex.

Herpes Simplex 2. Blanket statement fails. Indeed, when I looked at Wikipedia it was the only incurable one I found other then HIV. Although there are a few treatable possibly-fatal ones (Syphilis, Hepatitis B).

As TB goes through the air, it is not more or less "deadly" and "severe" than STDs of any type.

The difference, as Eris said, it if you keep your pants on, you have no chance to spread a STD. It takes voluntary action on the part of at least one party to spread. But you can't not breathe, and if you breathe you have a good chance of passing on the infection to others.

But this was all merely an example. =) It is not the base of this topic and therefore, shouldn't continue. I appreciate the input.

Actually, it's fairly pertinent to the topic, as the topic is about a person’s responsibility for infecting others through ignorance.

[Grim Scythe]

If STDs/etc were so horribly difficult to contract as you say they is, thousands upon thousands of people wouldn't die every year because of them. On that matter, ALL STDs that are incurable eventually lead to death, quite miserably so. And as for transmiting through partners, there is a ridiculous number of people who don't tell their partners who have unprotected sex.

As TB goes through the air, it is not more or less "deadly" and "severe" than STDs of any type.


But this was all merely an example. =) It is not the base of this topic and therefore, shouldn't continue. I appreciate the input.

such ignorance i have not seen in a while

you wont appreciate my input

1. house arrest would not guarantee the deadly germs would not spread
2. he is currently being safely contained
3. you really don't know how TB used to be a major epidemic
4. STDs are a relatively new epidemic
5. mp2k cited very well how the former two are not compared well
6. I'm about to set the line-->the man should be put to sleep
7. out of his soon to be misery and for the safety of others
8. and if you say "then so should all the people with STDs", then id partly agree
9. but if you really want to get into a discussion on who deserves to live then walk away now because you cant handle it and it'd be a ridiculous waste of my time

[Kilawher Shazarade]

You think he should be PUT TO SLEEP? Euthanization is definitely NOT the answer. People can still live out their lives happily in quarantined places. That isn't setting the line, that's just crossing it.

He'll be fine if he's just placed somewhere for terminal and contagious illnesses. He'll be able to see the light of day under certain circumstances and he can continue to live. That is just ridiculous.

[Kristen]

such ignorance i have not seen in a while

you wont appreciate my input

1. house arrest would not guarantee the deadly germs would not spread
2. he is currently being safely contained
3. you really don't know how TB used to be a major epidemic
4. STDs are a relatively new epidemic
5. mp2k cited very well how the former two are not compared well
6. I'm about to set the line-->the man should be put to sleep
7. out of his soon to be misery and for the safety of others
8. and if you say "then so should all the people with STDs", then id partly agree
9. but if you really want to get into a discussion on who deserves to live then walk away now because you cant handle it and it'd be a ridiculous waste of my time

There are plenty of ways to house arrest someone and contain the virus. It's done constantly. The same procedure they're taking now could be done in a home. Sealing air is not that hard, nor does it take a genius to know so.

Yes, TB has had a history of being a large "epidemic", you're right in saying so. But what you people keep doing is minimizing STDs like they're nothing in comparison. Death and illness are death and illness no matter WHAT form they're in. Yes, TB spreads via air. Yes, it can be more contagious. BUT, it is rare that you find a form of TB that cannot be cured. This man, as stated, is a rare and serious case because of the fact that his TB is incurable by common medication. It is drug resistant, which NOT all TB is. As I've stated, it's rare to find someone that has drug resistant TB. Also, the amount of people currently living in the US with TB is dramatically lower than those living with non-curable STDs. STDs, though slightly harder to contract, are generally always drug resistant.

And please, "put to sleep"? The mere fact that you're proclaiming such a monstrosity as "putting him out of his misery" is proof enough to me that you have absolutely no kind of grasp on reality. I don't believe for a second that he was truly that miserable until being forced into uncomfortable confinement.

Seriously, your best bet is just to quit while you're ahead. Not to be rude, but your maturity level within this type of conversation is severely lacking and you're completely contradictory. Continue as you see fit, but I won't be responding to your nonsense after this.

You think he should be PUT TO SLEEP? Euthanization is definitely NOT the answer. People can still live out their lives happily in quarantined places. That isn't setting the line, that's just crossing it.

He'll be fine if he's just placed somewhere for terminal and contagious illnesses. He'll be able to see the light of day under certain circumstances and he can continue to live. That is just ridiculous.

<3

Herpes Simplex 2. Blanket statement fails. Indeed, when I looked at Wikipedia it was the only incurable one I found other then HIV. Although there are a few treatable possibly-fatal ones (Syphilis, Hepatitis B).

Regardless of how severe, fatality is fatality. There are a percentage of cancer patients who live, but it doesn't make cancer any less than it is. People still die from it daily, people are still affected by it, and it’s still something that has the [large] possibility of leading to death. And that is how I was comparing TB to STDs.

STDs are still contractible. And it's not always as easy as "keep your pants on". With TB, it's quite easy to tell who does or does not have it if you know what to look for. But it's not that easy with all STDs. Generally, unless they tell you, you'd never know if your best friend had an STD. It's just that simple to hide. Thousands of people each year are infected with an STD because their sexual partner didn't tell them they had an STD. Now that person has an STD and they have the CHOICE not to tell their next partner. Then they give birth to a child who has an STD. Now that person has the CHOICE not to tell any of their partners. Some people don't even KNOW they have an STD because they don't deem it necessary to be checked on a regular basis. They "trust" who they're with and all that nonsense. It's even easier to spread it because people are so ignorant of it. It also isn't always contracted through sexual penetration. Well, now what? Now we have ten people who have an STD who don't know about it, or aren't telling people. They each have two sexual partners in their lifetime (which is an extreme cut from the truth because MOST people have far more than two) and now those two have STDs. Then those two have two, then they have children, etcetc. It just goes on and on and there isn't a way to stop it.

Someone said here that in some countries, it's illegal to not inform your partner you have an STD (or have sex, whatever). Well, who is going to stop them? What government official is going to follow around each and every person in their country to make sure they're telling people they have an STD before they have sex or simple not have sex at all? Sure, the person they give it to could report them- But what then? The damage was already done and now one more (if not two, if they per chance have a child) has an STD. Then they could, or could not, tell their child or their next partner they have one.

The hole in your theory is that you're relying way too much on human honesty. You're assuming every person with an STD TELLS everyone they have sex with, or do anything else with, that they have an STD. Over fifty percent of the time, though, they don't.

People have become so ignorant to these types of things that it's always shrugged off as something that couldn't happen to them. People say "I could never get an STD, the person I'm involved with would tell me if they had one. I trust them." Throughout history, it has always been that kind of thinking, the "It couldn't happen to me" way of thought that has lead to diseases and to death.

Even supposing that you ARE informed your partner has an STD, it's still fairly easy to contract that STD even IF you're being safe, even IF you're aware of it.

By no means am I trying to say that TB is any less deadly and contagious than any STD. What I am trying to get across is that STDs are JUST as contagious and JUST as deadly as TB.

Also, as I've said before, I didn't suggest that we let him run around or cough on everyone. I merely said that there has to be a better, more humane, way of dealing with him than keeping him in a cage as if he's a mass murderer.

[Light Buster]

Prison? Thats really stupid. If anything, they should've had him locked up in a hospital, or like you said, in his own home. Putting him in prison reaaaally isnt going to solve anything

Well that's true because the other prisoners are going to get sick from that guy who was thrown into jail recently...

[Aleyna]

well i think it would be a better idea if they stuck him into a small well supplied confined hospital(or small care center), out in the wilderness or someplace isolated to treat him tell him(educate him) how to take care of his illness

[Kaitou Ace]

Hm... Well I don't think anyone is trying to minimize the dangers posed by STD's, but TB is a lot more infective, and often a lot more deadly then an STD is.

Working in a hospital, the solution to dealing with a patient who has an STD is two layers of gloves, and washing your hands.

The solution to dealing with even the regular strain of TB is an air-tight room, with its own air-circulation system, everyone going in and out wears gowns and masks that are destroyed in the intermediate chamber.

This was the procedure at the hospital I volunteered at, the biggest one in NYC, and we had two of these rooms in the ER area.

A person with a TB can infect 22&#37; of the people they come in contact with, and untreated, even the normal strains have about a 50% fatality rate.

STD's are contractible, absolutely. However I think even the most dedicated STD infected patient will have a hard time infecting 22% of the people they come in contact with, with their STD. Airborne diseases put a lot more people at risk, it is a difference of a few factors of magnitude.

While death is death, and suffering is suffering, some diseases are much better at killing and infecting people then others are. This is in no way meant to minimize how dangerous STD's can be, but there are things that are more infective. Through most of the 19th century about a quarter of the deaths in England were from TB. Also the 'silly' laws about it being illegal to spit in the street were passed because that was a way for TB to spread, as the germs can survive for weeks in such a state, eventually becoming air-borne.

[Grim Scythe]

Seriously, your best bet is just to quit while you're ahead. Not to be rude, but your maturity level within this type of conversation is severely lacking and you're completely contradictory. Continue as you see fit, but I won't be responding to your nonsense after this.

^this is a really dumb statement^
first i doubt you will really "not respond"
secondly you can talk about maturity all you want to and about reality too


anyways ill say that i was partly wrong
i was going solely on the information presented and at the time didnt check up on the facts
that article hyped up the "virtually incurable part"
check this http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5511a2.htm
i now say that he needs to have treatment while in his jail cell
he should not be put into any sort of house arrest seeing as he is a flight risk already showing low intelligence by refusing to wear a mask

and i stand by my previous misinformed statement
and ill explain a bit better
if he cant be treated and he is an extreme bio-hazard and he is slowly dying of TB
the he should be euthanised



and i am belittling STDs because they have naught to do with this discussion in its purpose
STDs are already an epidemic
they are being worked on
TB is attempting a comeback which must be stopped

and in this context STDs are basically like trying to argue religion
it will be a can of worms

[menchia]

From a moral sense, they are crossing the line, but his TB is drug-resistant. They have not done anything wrong actually because he knew he had TB that was not cured and he still went out without a mask. He was a danger to all the people in the pharmacy he went to and on the streets he passed, and ignorance is no excuse to the people killed by him even if indirectly.

Although he deserves to be in the cell, he is still being treated in an unfair manner. If anything, he should at least be allowed basic appliances like a television, computer, or even a phone. The real issue is that he isn't provided with the stuff listed and that is cruel. Being confined is fine, as long as he isn't hurting anyone, but shouldn't he be given basic human rights?