Full Version: Locked Up for Being Sick
Here is one of those situations where the rights of the individual clash with the right of society at large to be protected.
Imagine being locked up in jail just for being sick.
That seems to be the case for a 27 year old Phoenix man who's been in a Maricopa County hospital prison ward for the last eight and a half months.
The man suffers from a very rare case of tuberculosis; something that could kill him before he gets out.
Robert Daniels is in solitary confinement. "I never thought that this could happen," he says. "I'm telling you, I'm sometimes sitting on a bed and I'm just crying because of all the quietness."
"I'm not being isolated, I'm being incarcerated."
For the past 8 months he has been confined to his room, equipped with a special ventilation system. His only contact with the outside world is the medical staff who feed and treat him. And a telephone.
Arizona health officials say they told Daniels that he was infectious and repeatedly warned him to wear a mask in public. He didn't. link
The questions for debate are:
1. Are the civil rights of Robert Daniels being violated by the state forcibly incarcerating/quarantining him or is his refusal to wear a mask giving them no other choice?
2. Would it be more humane if Daniels were confined to a hospital or some other health care facility instead of a jail?
3. Are we heading down the proverbial "slippery slope" where everyone who has a communicable disease is at risk of being locked up if they act in a irresponsible manner?
Imagine being locked up in jail just for being sick.
That seems to be the case for a 27 year old Phoenix man who's been in a Maricopa County hospital prison ward for the last eight and a half months.
The man suffers from a very rare case of tuberculosis; something that could kill him before he gets out.
Robert Daniels is in solitary confinement. "I never thought that this could happen," he says. "I'm telling you, I'm sometimes sitting on a bed and I'm just crying because of all the quietness."
"I'm not being isolated, I'm being incarcerated."
For the past 8 months he has been confined to his room, equipped with a special ventilation system. His only contact with the outside world is the medical staff who feed and treat him. And a telephone.
Arizona health officials say they told Daniels that he was infectious and repeatedly warned him to wear a mask in public. He didn't. link
The questions for debate are:
1. Are the civil rights of Robert Daniels being violated by the state forcibly incarcerating/quarantining him or is his refusal to wear a mask giving them no other choice?
2. Would it be more humane if Daniels were confined to a hospital or some other health care facility instead of a jail?
3. Are we heading down the proverbial "slippery slope" where everyone who has a communicable disease is at risk of being locked up if they act in a irresponsible manner?
1. Are the civil rights of Robert Daniels being violated by the state forcibly incarcerating/quarantining him or is his refusal to wear a mask giving them no other choice?
What a sad, sad story. Unfortunately, this is one of those situations where there is no good answer. The legal right of the government to impose quarantine is well-established.
Link
Obviously this power should only be used in extreme circumstances, when there is a genuine, serious threat to public health.
This is an extraordinary situation. I have nothing but pity for Robert Daniels, but he must be isolated from society.
2. Would it be more humane if Daniels were confined to a hospital or some other health care facility instead of a jail?
Daniels needs to be in a secure facility which has the proper ventilation system he requires.
Daniels should be treated with as much kindness as possible, and his incarceration should be as comfortable as possible. He should not be "punished" for his failure to wear his mask, but he must not be allowed to infect others with such an incredibly dangerous disease.
3. Are we heading down the proverbial "slippery slope" where everyone who has a communicable disease is at risk of being locked up if they act in a irresponsible manner?
I don't think so. This is an extremely unusual situation. The only analogy I can think of would be a person with AIDS having unprotected sex with uninfected persons. Even this isn't quite like the case of Robert Daniels. In the hypothetical case of the AIDS patient, her partner would have to share some of the responsibility for having unprotected sex. (If the AIDS patient were to deliberately deceive her partner into having unprotected sex, this could reasonably be considered a criminal act of assault.) In the case of Robert Daniels, he could infect someone who is just breathing the same air.
In order to prevent us from sliding down that slippery slope, the government must be required to follow all the rules when imposing quarantine, and the quarantined person must be allowed to make legal appeals. As far as I can tell, this has been done in this case.
What a sad, sad story. Unfortunately, this is one of those situations where there is no good answer. The legal right of the government to impose quarantine is well-established.
Link
QUOTE
QUARANTINE AUTHORITY
Title 42 United States Code Section 264 (Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act) gives the secretary of Health and Human Services responsibility for preventing the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and within the United States and its territories and possessions.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may detain, medically examine or conditionally release individuals reasonably believed to be carrying a communicable disease.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Title 42 United States Code Section 264 (Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act) gives the secretary of Health and Human Services responsibility for preventing the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and within the United States and its territories and possessions.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may detain, medically examine or conditionally release individuals reasonably believed to be carrying a communicable disease.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Obviously this power should only be used in extreme circumstances, when there is a genuine, serious threat to public health.
QUOTE
The TB strain Daniels has is so dangerous that he has never met his appointed lawyer, Robert Blecher, who describes the situation as "extremely unusual."
. . .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported there were 14,097 cases of TB in the United States last year. Just 15 were of the rare strain Daniels has.
. . .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported there were 14,097 cases of TB in the United States last year. Just 15 were of the rare strain Daniels has.
This is an extraordinary situation. I have nothing but pity for Robert Daniels, but he must be isolated from society.
2. Would it be more humane if Daniels were confined to a hospital or some other health care facility instead of a jail?
Daniels needs to be in a secure facility which has the proper ventilation system he requires.
QUOTE
Daniels' hospital room is designed so that air flows in, never out, to prevent the bacterium from spreading.
Daniels should be treated with as much kindness as possible, and his incarceration should be as comfortable as possible. He should not be "punished" for his failure to wear his mask, but he must not be allowed to infect others with such an incredibly dangerous disease.
3. Are we heading down the proverbial "slippery slope" where everyone who has a communicable disease is at risk of being locked up if they act in a irresponsible manner?
I don't think so. This is an extremely unusual situation. The only analogy I can think of would be a person with AIDS having unprotected sex with uninfected persons. Even this isn't quite like the case of Robert Daniels. In the hypothetical case of the AIDS patient, her partner would have to share some of the responsibility for having unprotected sex. (If the AIDS patient were to deliberately deceive her partner into having unprotected sex, this could reasonably be considered a criminal act of assault.) In the case of Robert Daniels, he could infect someone who is just breathing the same air.
In order to prevent us from sliding down that slippery slope, the government must be required to follow all the rules when imposing quarantine, and the quarantined person must be allowed to make legal appeals. As far as I can tell, this has been done in this case.
1. Are the civil rights of Robert Daniels being violated by the state forcibly incarcerating/quarantining him or is his refusal to wear a mask giving them no other choice?
His refusal to wear the mask, i.e., his refusal to respect the rights of everybody else to not be subjected to high risk of contracting a fatal disease, leaves them no choice.
2. Would it be more humane if Daniels were confined to a hospital or some other health care facility instead of a jail?
Yes, it would be more humane, to Daniels. However, his refusal to wear the mask demonstrates his low regard for the health and safety of his fellow citizens, and thus argues for the increased security that a jail offers.
3. Are we heading down the proverbial "slippery slope" where everyone who has a communicable disease is at risk of being locked up if they act in a irresponsible manner?
No, because the risk to others is always a consideration. We don't lock up those who have colds, and nobody is suggesting it. The fact that we don't take even the previously traditional public health measures regarding communicable fatal diseases with AIDS indicates that before we go sliding down the slippery slope we first have to climb back up to a rational position. Victoria's example clearly illustrates the situation. Until AIDS became entangled with "gay rights", the idea of not requiring individuals known to have communicable fatal diseases to disclose that fact when pertinent was unheard of... one's "right to privacy" did not give carte blanche to put others at deadly risk. Mandatory notification and followup was the previous norm.
This is a tragic situation, compounded by one individual's irresponsibility. Given the risk he presents, a rational argument could be made that he should be given the same treatment as a mad cow. Fortunately for Daniels, our science and technology have given us enough ability to manage the risk so that such extreme measures are not necessary. Whether or not they would be wise depends in large part on Daniels himself. He is in essence a walking manslaughterer, and given the knowledge of his condition, it could be argued that any deaths he causes would easily fall under "voluntary" manslaughter.
His refusal to wear the mask, i.e., his refusal to respect the rights of everybody else to not be subjected to high risk of contracting a fatal disease, leaves them no choice.
2. Would it be more humane if Daniels were confined to a hospital or some other health care facility instead of a jail?
Yes, it would be more humane, to Daniels. However, his refusal to wear the mask demonstrates his low regard for the health and safety of his fellow citizens, and thus argues for the increased security that a jail offers.
3. Are we heading down the proverbial "slippery slope" where everyone who has a communicable disease is at risk of being locked up if they act in a irresponsible manner?
No, because the risk to others is always a consideration. We don't lock up those who have colds, and nobody is suggesting it. The fact that we don't take even the previously traditional public health measures regarding communicable fatal diseases with AIDS indicates that before we go sliding down the slippery slope we first have to climb back up to a rational position. Victoria's example clearly illustrates the situation. Until AIDS became entangled with "gay rights", the idea of not requiring individuals known to have communicable fatal diseases to disclose that fact when pertinent was unheard of... one's "right to privacy" did not give carte blanche to put others at deadly risk. Mandatory notification and followup was the previous norm.
This is a tragic situation, compounded by one individual's irresponsibility. Given the risk he presents, a rational argument could be made that he should be given the same treatment as a mad cow. Fortunately for Daniels, our science and technology have given us enough ability to manage the risk so that such extreme measures are not necessary. Whether or not they would be wise depends in large part on Daniels himself. He is in essence a walking manslaughterer, and given the knowledge of his condition, it could be argued that any deaths he causes would easily fall under "voluntary" manslaughter.
**************************************************************
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf)
He should not be "punished" for his failure to wear his mask, but he must not be allowed to infect others with such an incredibly dangerous disease
I disagree, he should be punished for his refusal to wear his mask. By doing so, he is as culpable as the individual who takes prescription medications with explicit instructions not to drive, then drives and kills somebody as a result of their inability to properly operate a motor vehicle. The intent was not to harm others, but nonetheless the stoned driver behaved with reckless disregard for the safety of others. Now, as a practical matter, there's no point in punishing him as it relates to him. He's already locked up in solitary. Whether its worth "punishing" him legally in order to uphold the principle of the law is another question, one that I'm unsure of the answer. Justice might demand it, mercy certainly would say nay. I'm leaning with you on this one toward the "nay."
QUOTE
1. Are the civil rights of Robert Daniels being violated by the state forcibly incarcerating/quarantining him or is his refusal to wear a mask giving them no other choice?
No. They have essentially “quarantined” this man. From the link:
Daniels' tuberculosis is a deadly, drug resistant strain. He has been quarantined by the state. But he has a different perspective.
No. They have essentially “quarantined” this man. From the link:
Daniels' tuberculosis is a deadly, drug resistant strain. He has been quarantined by the state. But he has a different perspective.
This disease is still one of the worst killers worldwide and the “drug resistant strain” could mean the US could be in danger of a resurgence of the disease.
“The number of tuberculosis (TB) cases is increasing worldwide. This is particularly true in countries with high HIV prevalence. There is still no evolution in terms of development of new diagnostic tools and treatment. The only available ones are archaic and do not allow the efficient detection and treatment of TB in developing countries, where 99 percent of deaths occur.
Tuberculosis is one of the three main killer infectious diseases. Each year, nearly 9 million people develop the disease of which about two million die, mainly in developing countries. The worst situation is found in Africa where most of the patients who are HIV positive live.”
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/...losis/index.cfm
2. Would it be more humane if Daniels were confined to a hospital or some other health care facility instead of a jail?
No. Confinement is arduous regardless of where it is applied.
3. Are we heading down the proverbial "slippery slope" where everyone who has a communicable disease is at risk of being locked up if they act in a irresponsible manner?
I cannot believe this man was let out at all. How could anyone guarantee his compliance? The risk to the public of this disease certainly justifies confinement
1. Are the civil rights of Robert Daniels being violated by the state forcibly incarcerating/quarantining him or is his refusal to wear a mask giving them no other choice?
I agree with Victoria – there is no good answer to this situation. I think Daniels is an idiot for not taking the very simple precaution of wearing a mask. From the news accounts, he isn’t a very responsible person, but that doesn’t mean he still doesn’t have rights. Make no mistake, I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near him, but he isn’t a criminal. As far as I know, there are no laws on the books making it a crime to be sick or even to make others sick (heck, if there were, workplaces would be empty and jails would be full!
). He hasn’t committed any crime; therefore, he is being unlawfully imprisoned. He should be moved to a facility that at least offers him some semblence of comfort and care.
2. Would it be more humane if Daniels were confined to a hospital or some other health care facility instead of a jail?
I believe so. Hospitals are equipped for quarantine, and his loved ones could at least visit him. UPenn has this to say.
Phoenix-area hospitals must be similarly equipped. There is no reason to incarcerate Mr. Daniels in what may his last months of life in a dingy jail cell. Hospitals are far better able and equipped to deal with medical issues. He shouldn’t have to live this way, without the ability to take a shower or contact anyone in the outside world. That’s the very definition of cruel and unusual.
3. Are we heading down the proverbial "slippery slope" where everyone who has a communicable disease is at risk of being locked up if they act in a irresponsible manner?
It shows what lengths people will go to out of fear.
I agree with Victoria – there is no good answer to this situation. I think Daniels is an idiot for not taking the very simple precaution of wearing a mask. From the news accounts, he isn’t a very responsible person, but that doesn’t mean he still doesn’t have rights. Make no mistake, I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near him, but he isn’t a criminal. As far as I know, there are no laws on the books making it a crime to be sick or even to make others sick (heck, if there were, workplaces would be empty and jails would be full!
). He hasn’t committed any crime; therefore, he is being unlawfully imprisoned. He should be moved to a facility that at least offers him some semblence of comfort and care.2. Would it be more humane if Daniels were confined to a hospital or some other health care facility instead of a jail?
I believe so. Hospitals are equipped for quarantine, and his loved ones could at least visit him. UPenn has this to say.
QUOTE
If after more thorough evaluation TB is a persistent concern the patient should have a chest X-ray performed as soon as possible and if appropriate be admitted to a negative pressure room for Airborne Precautions in the hospital. UPenn
Phoenix-area hospitals must be similarly equipped. There is no reason to incarcerate Mr. Daniels in what may his last months of life in a dingy jail cell. Hospitals are far better able and equipped to deal with medical issues. He shouldn’t have to live this way, without the ability to take a shower or contact anyone in the outside world. That’s the very definition of cruel and unusual.
3. Are we heading down the proverbial "slippery slope" where everyone who has a communicable disease is at risk of being locked up if they act in a irresponsible manner?
It shows what lengths people will go to out of fear.
Whether or not Phoenix has a negative pressure room I don't know, but even if they do, does it have the full range of amenities? Does it have a shower? Nobody posting here knows...
I don't know why they've isolated him electronically, and I can't think of any reason for doing so, aside from simplifying the subsequent decontamination of his quarters. If so, well, that's not sufficient. He should have full access to whatever forms of media are available in the facility. The shower is more problematic, as even in solitary, the showers are communal. My guess is a similar situation exists in the hospitals. The only way to take a shower is would be to leave the isolation area. Perhaps it would behoove us to create "isolation suites", but at what cost?
Given the nature of the second quote, I'm not sure that you really thought through the first quote. It is fairly simple for you to avoid going anywhere near him, but how do you propose to keep him from coming anywhere near you? You clearly recognize the risk he poses, as a practical matter, how do you deal with it?
Understand that Maricopa County has to work, right now, with what they have, right now. It has to do so in recognition of its responsibilities to all the rest of its citizens as well. Just for sake of argument, let's grant that they do have a hospital appropriately equipped, and some anonymous benefactor is willing to pick up the hospital cost. Assuming that Daniels lives another year, keeping him confined in the hospital will take nearly 9,000 direct manhours more than confining him in a prison, and that's with only a single guard 24/7 to insure that he doesn't mosey off. The single guard provides nowhere near the security that the prison provides. Regardless of whether he's quarantined in a prison or quarantined in a hospital, he is not free. If depriving him of his freedom is necessary, then the necessity is such that as much risk as possible should be mitigated.
On a related subject, I'd like to point out that the freedom of assembly is one of our basic civil rights that is explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution. Yet, what happens to that guarantee in the face of a pandemic?
Read Rapid Response Key to Containing Spanish Flu for some insight.
I don't know why they've isolated him electronically, and I can't think of any reason for doing so, aside from simplifying the subsequent decontamination of his quarters. If so, well, that's not sufficient. He should have full access to whatever forms of media are available in the facility. The shower is more problematic, as even in solitary, the showers are communal. My guess is a similar situation exists in the hospitals. The only way to take a shower is would be to leave the isolation area. Perhaps it would behoove us to create "isolation suites", but at what cost?
*******************************************************************
QUOTE(DaffyGrl)
As far as I know, there are no laws on the books making it a crime to be sick or even to make others sick (heck, if there were, workplaces would be empty and jails would be full! ).
Actually, that's not true. There are laws on the books that address the matter. Assault, manslaughter, attempted murder (when the attempt to make others sick with a fatal disease is deliberate), all cover the matter. The laws have rarely been applied to illness, but it does happen.QUOTE
It shows what lengths people will go to out of fear.
andQUOTE
Make no mistake, I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near him,
Understand that Maricopa County has to work, right now, with what they have, right now. It has to do so in recognition of its responsibilities to all the rest of its citizens as well. Just for sake of argument, let's grant that they do have a hospital appropriately equipped, and some anonymous benefactor is willing to pick up the hospital cost. Assuming that Daniels lives another year, keeping him confined in the hospital will take nearly 9,000 direct manhours more than confining him in a prison, and that's with only a single guard 24/7 to insure that he doesn't mosey off. The single guard provides nowhere near the security that the prison provides. Regardless of whether he's quarantined in a prison or quarantined in a hospital, he is not free. If depriving him of his freedom is necessary, then the necessity is such that as much risk as possible should be mitigated.
***************************************************************
On a related subject, I'd like to point out that the freedom of assembly is one of our basic civil rights that is explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution. Yet, what happens to that guarantee in the face of a pandemic?
Read Rapid Response Key to Containing Spanish Flu for some insight.
1. Are the civil rights of Robert Daniels being violated by the state forcibly incarcerating/quarantining him or is his refusal to wear a mask giving them no other choice?
Robert Daniels violated my civil rights by knowingly spreading a deadly disease, just as effectively as if he had been a suicide terrorist trying to kill people by infecting himself with ebola. If Daniels had behaved responsibly, the confinement wouldn't have been necessary. From an interview I heard with him, he sounds potentially closterphobic, which will make the quarantine far more difficult for him than the rest of us. I'd put him on suicide watch and make sure that he had the comforts of home, within reason, paid for in part with private fundraisers, but also tax money if necessary. However, I wouldn't turn him loose on society to start an epidemic.
2. Would it be more humane if Daniels were confined to a hospital or some other health care facility instead of a jail?
Actually, he has been confined to the jail ward in a Phoenix hospital, so he's been exactly where any other hospital would put him under the circumstances. I've read conflicting reports about the conditions he's in. Hospital officials say his quarters are configured much like the other rooms in the hospital, with extra precautions. He (and anonymous sources who only have his word to go by) have claimed he doesn't have radio, TV, a shower, or access to a long distance plan besides collect. Unless he's been violent with such comforts or they pose a health or flight risk, I don't see why he shouldn't have them, if for no other reason than to help improve his mental health. He should also have a closed-circuit video system for meeting with lawyers and therapists, and calls to Moscow. If the issue is cost, let's take up a collection.
3. Are we heading down the proverbial "slippery slope" where everyone who has a communicable disease is at risk of being locked up if they act in a irresponsible manner?
Quarantine laws are far, far too old to be seriously considered for a slippery slope argument. If that slope has ever been slippery, it has long since been fossilized and well-worn. It is good to be careful that government isn't treating quarantined people inhumanely, but confining people with rare, contageous, deadly diseases like XDR-TB, forcibly if necessary, serves a clear public interest, especially in this day and age.
I hope Daniels heals quickly and receives the psychological counselling he needs to overcome whatever phobias have compelled him behave so sociopathically. I also hope he receives no additional hard time after his health improves, if it is determined that his reckless compulsion to infect others was the result of mental illness or instability. This guy has been through enough already, but the authorities seem to be doing the right thing. The good people of Phoenix should do everything they can to make sure his confinement isn't as inhumane as he allegedly claims.
Robert Daniels violated my civil rights by knowingly spreading a deadly disease, just as effectively as if he had been a suicide terrorist trying to kill people by infecting himself with ebola. If Daniels had behaved responsibly, the confinement wouldn't have been necessary. From an interview I heard with him, he sounds potentially closterphobic, which will make the quarantine far more difficult for him than the rest of us. I'd put him on suicide watch and make sure that he had the comforts of home, within reason, paid for in part with private fundraisers, but also tax money if necessary. However, I wouldn't turn him loose on society to start an epidemic.
2. Would it be more humane if Daniels were confined to a hospital or some other health care facility instead of a jail?
Actually, he has been confined to the jail ward in a Phoenix hospital, so he's been exactly where any other hospital would put him under the circumstances. I've read conflicting reports about the conditions he's in. Hospital officials say his quarters are configured much like the other rooms in the hospital, with extra precautions. He (and anonymous sources who only have his word to go by) have claimed he doesn't have radio, TV, a shower, or access to a long distance plan besides collect. Unless he's been violent with such comforts or they pose a health or flight risk, I don't see why he shouldn't have them, if for no other reason than to help improve his mental health. He should also have a closed-circuit video system for meeting with lawyers and therapists, and calls to Moscow. If the issue is cost, let's take up a collection.
3. Are we heading down the proverbial "slippery slope" where everyone who has a communicable disease is at risk of being locked up if they act in a irresponsible manner?
Quarantine laws are far, far too old to be seriously considered for a slippery slope argument. If that slope has ever been slippery, it has long since been fossilized and well-worn. It is good to be careful that government isn't treating quarantined people inhumanely, but confining people with rare, contageous, deadly diseases like XDR-TB, forcibly if necessary, serves a clear public interest, especially in this day and age.
I hope Daniels heals quickly and receives the psychological counselling he needs to overcome whatever phobias have compelled him behave so sociopathically. I also hope he receives no additional hard time after his health improves, if it is determined that his reckless compulsion to infect others was the result of mental illness or instability. This guy has been through enough already, but the authorities seem to be doing the right thing. The good people of Phoenix should do everything they can to make sure his confinement isn't as inhumane as he allegedly claims.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Apr 5 2007, 10:50 PM) 
1. Are the civil rights of Robert Daniels being violated by the state forcibly incarcerating/quarantining him or is his refusal to wear a mask giving them no other choice?
His refusal of wearing a mask is the reason, if he really wanted to take care of himself and keep himself from being punished he would've followed the directions repeatedly given to him. By refusing to wear a mask, he knew there would be consequences and actions would have to be taken to keep the public safe. He made his bed, now he has to sleep in it.
QUOTE
2. Would it be more humane if Daniels were confined to a hospital or some other health care facility instead of a jail?
Seamus has mentioned it actually is a jail/quaratine wing in a hospital, so I do not know if this question can really be addressed anymore. Only if he doesn't have TV, radio, etc. can we help it be better for him.
QUOTE
3. Are we heading down the proverbial "slippery slope" where everyone who has a communicable disease is at risk of being locked up if they act in a irresponsible manner?[/b]
He refused to listen to law agencies, if you don't follow the rules, you're bound to get a consequence. No we're not heading down that road.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Apr 6 2007, 01:50 AM)
1. Are the civil rights of Robert Daniels being violated by the state forcibly incarcerating/quarantining him or is his refusal to wear a mask giving them no other choice?
2. Would it be more humane if Daniels were confined to a hospital or some other health care facility instead of a jail?
3. Are we heading down the proverbial "slippery slope" where everyone who has a communicable disease is at risk of being locked up if they act in a irresponsible manner?
1. Sadly, this is one of those cases where the rights of the one cannot be permitted to supersede the rights of the many. I hope the ACLU is unsuccessful in their attempts to free Robert Daniels, but if they are he should move in to their offices. Loathe though I may be to start putting away people because they are sick, if they are irresponsible on top of being ill, then the proper authorities have no choice but to step in. I don't get why Daniels refuses to wear a mask. It's not his fault he contracted a untreatable strain of TB, but he's a lethal weapon by not taking precautions to avoid infecting others.
2. The panel discussion I heard on NPR sympathized with Daniels and one person suggesting at least giving him a PlayStation and more comfortable living quarters. Isolation ain't no joke so it's not surprising he feels like a rat in a cage. Not to be cynical, but since there's no treating Daniels, it may be the Arizona health officials are hoping he dies and solves this problem for them.
3. It isn't impossible to conceive there could be hundreds or thousands of people walking around like Robert Daniels who are sick, contagious and don't care that they are. Everyone has heard stories of people who have AIDS having sex and not informing their partners of their status. Some people don't care who they hurt. Society has to be protected from those selfish few, but this situation illustrates how there has to be some better ideas and laws applied to forcibly quarantining those who knowingly or unknowingly are a danger to others.
1. Are the civil rights of Robert Daniels being violated by the state forcibly incarcerating/quarantining him or is his refusal to wear a mask giving them no other choice?
No, they civil rights of others are being protected.
2. Would it be more humane if Daniels were confined to a hospital or some other health care facility instead of a jail?
More humane for who..Daniels, or the injured person who doesn't have a room because Daniels is in it? Also, how is the hospital set up to keep him in such a room? That's what started this whole problem...Daniels wouldn't keep himself quarantined or take steps to prevent himself from transmitting his disease to other.
3. Are we heading down the proverbial "slippery slope" where everyone who has a communicable disease is at risk of being locked up if they act in a irresponsible manner?
All right, I'll bite on this one. Why shouldn't people be locked up for acting irresponsibly when they have a communicable disease? What gives them the right to just go around giving it to everyone they come into contact with? Isn't the whole point of the jail system to keep those who endanger society away from it? Well, if you have a communicable disease and are acting irresponsibly, then you are a danger to society, aren't you?
No, they civil rights of others are being protected.
2. Would it be more humane if Daniels were confined to a hospital or some other health care facility instead of a jail?
More humane for who..Daniels, or the injured person who doesn't have a room because Daniels is in it? Also, how is the hospital set up to keep him in such a room? That's what started this whole problem...Daniels wouldn't keep himself quarantined or take steps to prevent himself from transmitting his disease to other.
3. Are we heading down the proverbial "slippery slope" where everyone who has a communicable disease is at risk of being locked up if they act in a irresponsible manner?
All right, I'll bite on this one. Why shouldn't people be locked up for acting irresponsibly when they have a communicable disease? What gives them the right to just go around giving it to everyone they come into contact with? Isn't the whole point of the jail system to keep those who endanger society away from it? Well, if you have a communicable disease and are acting irresponsibly, then you are a danger to society, aren't you?
3. Are we heading down the proverbial "slippery slope" where everyone who has a communicable disease is at risk of being locked up if they act in a irresponsible manner?
He is basically committing assault with his actions. Endangering lives by his very presence. This is not something where people around him can up and walk away because he is smoking a cigarette and they dont want second hand smoke. He is passing around a life threatening disease.
If you could prove someone contracted it from him I think criminal charges are more than justified. He will have wilfully comitted the assault.
He has no "Right" to harm others. I see no difference between his very breath and a pistol.
He is basically committing assault with his actions. Endangering lives by his very presence. This is not something where people around him can up and walk away because he is smoking a cigarette and they dont want second hand smoke. He is passing around a life threatening disease.
If you could prove someone contracted it from him I think criminal charges are more than justified. He will have wilfully comitted the assault.
He has no "Right" to harm others. I see no difference between his very breath and a pistol.
QUOTE(christopher @ Apr 7 2007, 03:13 AM)
He is passing around a life threatening disease.
Actually, it is more than a life threatening disease. Tuberculosis is fairly common in many parts of the world, and often goes untreated, or limited treatment. Because so many people have failed to follow through on the treatment programs, there are strains of tuberculosis that are resistant to drug treatment. The particular strain Daniels is carrying is resistant to all forms of treatment. Therefore, whoever catches this form of tb from him is essentially getting not just a life threatening disease, but actually a death sentence. Given this, his incarceration seems pretty lenient--by intentionally walking around without his mask he has essentially been committing attempted manslaughter on a fairly massive scale. I find it fairly baffling that he isn't at least being charged with criminal negligence--I can't think of anything much more criminally negligent than what he is doing.
QUOTE
I find it fairly baffling that he isn't at least being charged with criminal negligence--I can't think of anything much more criminally negligent than what he is doing.
This is true enough, but it seems to me that he is being punished enough for what I presume was very foolish and careless behavior rather than deliberately malevolent behavior. I don't really know, of course, but I get the feeling this fellow simply isn't too bright rather than getting his kicks spreading this lethal disease around.
He is likely to die in solitary confinment. That seems like enough.
QUOTE(bikerdad)
Whether or not Phoenix has a negative pressure room I don't know, but even if they do, does it have the full range of amenities? Does it have a shower? Nobody posting here knows...
Not true. Every article referenced says that the room he is in has no windows, and no shower. He is given “wet wipes” instead. So the guy hasn’t had a shower since January.
QUOTE
Given the nature of the second quote, I'm not sure that you really thought through the first quote. It is fairly simple for you to avoid going anywhere near him, but how do you propose to keep him from coming anywhere near you? You clearly recognize the risk he poses, as a practical matter, how do you deal with it?
Since the two statements I made were in two different contexts, your truncating one and putting it next to the other does make it look contradictory. I was making the point that though I wouldn’t want to be near him, it doesn’t make him a criminal. See, different meaning if you read the whole sentence.
If you’d read beyond your own bias, you would have seen that I wasn’t advocating letting him go free to infect the public; I just think he should be treated as a sick person, not a criminal.
After reading the Democracy Now! link provided by Seamus, I would really like to hear the side of the story from the Arizona officials, because it sure seems like Robert Daniels is being treated more like a criminal than a sick man.
Maybe Daniels just isn't very smart. Obviously, he's far more concerned about his crappy living conditions that he is about his responsibility to manage his dangerous disease. Of course even if he promised to wear a mask, 24-7, there's no way he'd be set free.
As it stands, it seems more could be done to make a lousy situation a bit more tolerable and comfortable than what he's dealing with now.
Maybe Daniels just isn't very smart. Obviously, he's far more concerned about his crappy living conditions that he is about his responsibility to manage his dangerous disease. Of course even if he promised to wear a mask, 24-7, there's no way he'd be set free.
As it stands, it seems more could be done to make a lousy situation a bit more tolerable and comfortable than what he's dealing with now.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Apr 9 2007, 11:15 AM)
After reading the Democracy Now! link provided by Seamus, I would really like to hear the side of the story from the Arizona officials, because it sure seems like Robert Daniels is being treated more like a criminal than a sick man.
Maybe Daniels just isn't very smart. Obviously, he's far more concerned about his crappy living conditions that he is about his responsibility to manage his dangerous disease. Of course even if he promised to wear a mask, 24-7, there's no way he'd be set free.
As it stands, it seems more could be done to make a lousy situation a bit more tolerable and comfortable than what he's dealing with now.
Well... I hate to hear that anyone is dying like this. It's awful. However, remember... he chose not to wear the mask?.
At what point should a citizen be held legally liable for their actions? Does circumstance outweigh the better good of society? What alternatives are there? Consider cost and responsibility in this case.
I think they could make it better than the county jail, but maybe the city had no real alternatives. After all... he was apparently warned. I'd wonder if there isn't a hospital room somewhere in the city that could handle this poor guy. Where was he living before? What about house arrest?
QUOTE
Sadly, this is one of those cases where the rights of the one cannot be permitted to supersede the rights of the many. I hope the ACLU is unsuccessful in their attempts to free Robert Daniels, but if they are he should move in to their offices. Loathe though I may be to start putting away people because they are sick, if they are irresponsible on top of being ill, then the proper authorities have no choice but to step in. I don't get why Daniels refuses to wear a mask. It's not his fault he contracted a untreatable strain of TB, but he's a lethal weapon by not taking precautions to avoid infecting others.
I agree. How could even the ACLU think it would be advisable to free a man with a dangerous and highly contagious disease? Idiots.
QUOTE
I fail to see why he was released in the first place unless someone was absolutely certain he would ware the the mast – and there is no way this could have been done. Thus theses folks IMO were grossly negligent and endangered the lives of thousands of people.
QUOTE
Some people don't care who they hurt. Society has to be protected from those selfish few, but this situation illustrates how there has to be some better ideas and laws applied to forcibly quarantining those who knowingly or unknowingly are a danger to others.
I agree – leaving this decision to bureaucrats who may not want to bother with “keeping” a person and thus endangering us all is a crime. We need clear laws – and they need to be national laws – to protect us all.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Apr 7 2007, 11:40 PM)
This is true enough, but it seems to me that he is being punished enough for what I presume was very foolish and careless behavior rather than deliberately malevolent behavior. I don't really know, of course, but I get the feeling this fellow simply isn't too bright rather than getting his kicks spreading this lethal disease around.
The cases you hear about tend to be more stubborness than getting kicks. They don't like the lifestyle changed imposed on them for having to follow the prescribed program...basically, they don't want to walk around with the mask and remain intentionally ignorant of the consequences of that. In short, not so much that they are trying to get other people sick, but more that they just don't care. I don't know about the specifics of this case, but that would seem to be what's happening here as well. One would assume he had ample warnings before this step was taken, and steadfastly refused to adhere to them.
QUOTE
He is likely to die in solitary confinment. That seems like enough.
Oh, yes, on this I quite agree. In fact, that may be precisely why other charges aren't being levied...because they would all carry a lesser sentence, and might take away their ability to keep him confined. I'm not trying to 'pile on' here, Daniels is clearly receiving more than enough 'punishment'-- it is a death sentence, after all.
It's a more generic issue to me to make the public in general away that they have a responsibility when they are sick to take steps to not get others sick as well--and the more serious your sickness, the higher that responsibility.QUOTE(aevans)
they could make it better than the county jail, but maybe the city had no real alternatives. After all... he was apparently warned. I'd wonder if there isn't a hospital room somewhere in the city that could handle this poor guy.
Why should other sick people then have to receive poor treatment because this guy refused to wear his mask? Hospitals are generally pretty full, and in the time frame he's likely to need to stay there literally hundreds of other people might not then have an adequate room--all because of his negligence. THAT hardly seems fair. Then, consider how much more expensive that hospital room is than where he's at (or almost any other place they could put him, as far as that goes). They could build the guy a house for less than a long term stay in a hospital room would cost. Plus, keep in mind that he would need to be in isolation, therefore requiring considerably more room and care than other patients there. Finally, remember that having him there gives the staff one more person to have to look after, taking away time that they could spend on the other patients. This seems pretty unfair to everyone, doesn't it?
QUOTE(nighttimer)
because it sure seems like Robert Daniels is being treated more like a criminal than a sick man.
That does seem to be true...but in all fairness, isn't he more like a criminal than a sick man? He's walking around potentially killing people, all because of his own negligence, intentional or not. Not much different that if he were constantly shooting a gun off at random in public. Where should he be? The hospital can't provide much additional treatment, his disease is untreatable. Also, tb medicine is fairly easy to take, and shouldn't require someone to be in a full care facility to have it administered. Further, what is jail for, if not to keep those people deemed harmful to society away from it. THAT's why he's there...not because HE's sick, but because he is likely to kill others.
QUOTE
Maybe Daniels just isn't very smart. Obviously, he's far more concerned about his crappy living conditions that he is about his responsibility to manage his dangerous disease.
Yep...hence his current living conditions.
QUOTE
As it stands, it seems more could be done to make a lousy situation a bit more tolerable and comfortable than what he's dealing with now.
I'm not really against this idea...but like what? Where can he be kept that will keep him from infecting, and therefore killing, the public? Even the hospital can't really guarentee he'd stay put. The only place we as a society have for doing this is a jail.
QUOTE
The panel discussion I heard on NPR sympathized with Daniels and one person suggesting at least giving him a PlayStation and more comfortable living quarters. Isolation ain't no joke so it's not surprising he feels like a rat in a cage. Not to be cynical, but since there's no treating Daniels, it may be the Arizona health officials are hoping he dies and solves this problem for them.
I have to wonder why the first part of this isn't happening. Maybe to avoid creating resentment amongst the other inmates? As to the latter...it wouldn't surprise me a bit, sadly. Unfortunately, while deadly, tb is not a swift killer.
He is a danger to the health of the public at large....
he was given the opportunity to neutralize the threat by wearing a mask, he refuse to do so...
In his blatant disregard for the safety of the public in general he has commited reckless endangerment , that IS a crime.
What would you do if you or one of your children were infected by him? this isn't just a cold it is a very VERY deadly version of tuberculosis.
If someone KNOWS they have AIDS and purposefully has sex without letting their partner know they have aids, have they commited a crime?
he was given the opportunity to neutralize the threat by wearing a mask, he refuse to do so...
In his blatant disregard for the safety of the public in general he has commited reckless endangerment , that IS a crime.
QUOTE("Wiki")
Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm or know that his conduct is substantially certain to cause that result. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.
What would you do if you or one of your children were infected by him? this isn't just a cold it is a very VERY deadly version of tuberculosis.
If someone KNOWS they have AIDS and purposefully has sex without letting their partner know they have aids, have they commited a crime?
QUOTE
The questions for debate are:
1. Are the civil rights of Robert Daniels being violated by the state forcibly incarcerating/quarantining him or is his refusal to wear a mask giving them no other choice?
2. Would it be more humane if Daniels were confined to a hospital or some other health care facility instead of a jail?
3. Are we heading down the proverbial "slippery slope" where everyone who has a communicable disease is at risk of being locked up if they act in a irresponsible manner?
1. Are the civil rights of Robert Daniels being violated by the state forcibly incarcerating/quarantining him or is his refusal to wear a mask giving them no other choice?
2. Would it be more humane if Daniels were confined to a hospital or some other health care facility instead of a jail?
3. Are we heading down the proverbial "slippery slope" where everyone who has a communicable disease is at risk of being locked up if they act in a irresponsible manner?
In regards to the first question, his rights are not being violated in that he is quarantined from the general public. Others have posted convincing material that clearly shows a long history of that right. If you look at many of your county and city codes, you will find similar language as well. The collective health of the community is not something that can be ignored.
The real problem here is not that he is being confined, but how. There is also a misunderstanding of the ACLU's role in this, which doesn't suprprise me. This man does NOT deserve losing the *amenities* that other health patients have. Until someone dies and he's charged or sued by someone, then his treatment should be therapeutic, not correctional-end of story. The ACLU isn't taking issue with his detainment, they are taking issue with his treatment as a detainee.
QUOTE
The ACLU of Arizona condemns the decision by Maricopa County to treat Robert Daniels in an inhumane and unconstitutional manner. Assuming that there were sufficient reasons to initially quarantine Mr. Daniels, all subsequent decisions about his care, treatment and daily routines should be the responsibility of medical personnel. There is no justification or legal basis for abdicating this responsibility at the altar of cost and convenience for the county, and to simply allow the Sheriff’s Department to dictate critical aspects of the hospital stay. This department is treating Mr. Daniels in an extremely restrictive manner, and denying him the basic rights and amenities that are afforded to any patient, even if isolation from contacts is required.
There is no medical or valid reason for denying a person in physical isolation such things as a TV, a telephone and unmonitored calls, and the ability to shower, nor is there any valid explanation for requiring that a light be on in his locked room throughout the night.
There is no medical or valid reason for denying a person in physical isolation such things as a TV, a telephone and unmonitored calls, and the ability to shower, nor is there any valid explanation for requiring that a light be on in his locked room throughout the night.
Blog source.
So the guy visited a store and didn't wear a mask. He admits that he was unaware of precautions that he was to take he was never told. In having lived in Russia, I don't doubt that he wasn't given proper care or medical advice.
But let's leave that aside, he clearly belongs where he does and no one can seriously argue otherwise. But to argue that he shouldn't have a t.v.? A computer?, he should have no contact through technology with his wife and children? And we are going to deny him that because he's never been charged, let alone never having been implicated in even one case of anyone ever being sick? 
I'm worried when in our country, something like this can happen to a person and people think it's for his own good. I thought gulags were the stuff of other nations, but evidently, I'm mistaken.
QUOTE
So the guy visited a store and didn't wear a mask. He admits that he was unaware of precautions that he was to take he was never told. In having lived in Russia, I don't doubt that he wasn't given proper care or medical advice. But let's leave that aside, he clearly belongs where he does and no one can seriously argue otherwise. But to argue that he shouldn't have a t.v.? A computer?, he should have no contact through technology with his wife and children? And we are going to deny him that because he's never been charged, let alone never having been implicated in even one case of anyone ever being sick? I'm worried when in our country, something like this can happen to a person and people think it's for his own good. I thought gulags were the stuff of other nations, but evidently, I'm
He should get whatever is available in the place he is held – if no TV or computer are available he should not be given them. And I believe he was told to wear the mask. He just ignored it – and certainly it may not have been a good idea anyway – he should have been locked up from day one.
As for being implicated in spreading this highly contagious disease – well we may not know how many people he gave it to for some time. The disease starts slow. He could have given it to dozens of people some of whom may die from it and spread it to many others before they do. And there will be little opportunity to trace it back to this idiot.
After reading this, I am starting to rethink how cruel isolation is. What is it with the people who contract this deadly strain of TB that they can’t follow simple instructions? Does it somehow affect their brain? The CDC called this idiot in Italy to notify him of the results of the test and told him not to take a commercial flight home. What does he do? He takes a commercial flight to Canada and then drives to New York. Huh? 
The CDC then at least got his infected butt on a CDC plane back to Atlanta.
Here's a guy who knows he has an extremely infectionous strain of TB who gets on a crowded airliner with what we all know is disgusting air cleanliness anyway, in cramped quarters with ~300 passengers after he was specifically told not to.
The CDC called this idiot in Italy to notify him of the results of the test and told him not to take a commercial flight home. What does he do? He takes a commercial flight to Canada and then drives to New York. Huh? The CDC then at least got his infected butt on a CDC plane back to Atlanta.QUOTE
Federal and international officials are tracking down passengers and crew members on two trans-Atlantic flights earlier this month who may have been exposed to a man infected with an exceptionally dangerous form of tuberculosis.
The male passenger flew to Paris from his home in Atlanta on May 12 on Air France 385 and arrived in Paris on May 13. He returned to the United States on May 24 after taking Czech Air 104 to Montreal from Prague. The man drove into the United States that day and entered a hospital in New York City on May 25.
The man is now in an Atlanta hospital under federally enforced isolation after he was flown there from New York City on Monday in a plane owned by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. NYTimes
The male passenger flew to Paris from his home in Atlanta on May 12 on Air France 385 and arrived in Paris on May 13. He returned to the United States on May 24 after taking Czech Air 104 to Montreal from Prague. The man drove into the United States that day and entered a hospital in New York City on May 25.
The man is now in an Atlanta hospital under federally enforced isolation after he was flown there from New York City on Monday in a plane owned by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. NYTimes
Here's a guy who knows he has an extremely infectionous strain of TB who gets on a crowded airliner with what we all know is disgusting air cleanliness anyway, in cramped quarters with ~300 passengers after he was specifically told not to.
And here is the next nut:
ATLANTA — A man with a form of tuberculosis so dangerous he is under the first U.S. government-ordered quarantine since 1963 told a newspaper he took one trans-Atlantic flight for his wedding and honeymoon and another because he feared for his life.
Hundreds of health authorities around the world are now scrambling to track down passengers who were seated near the man for testing, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Julie Gerberding said Wednesday.
"There are two aspects to this," Gerberding said. "One is, is the patient himself highly infectious? Fortunately, in this case, he's probably not. But the other piece is this bacteria is a very deadly bacteria. We just have to err on the side of caution."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276336,00.html
He needs to be jailed!
ATLANTA — A man with a form of tuberculosis so dangerous he is under the first U.S. government-ordered quarantine since 1963 told a newspaper he took one trans-Atlantic flight for his wedding and honeymoon and another because he feared for his life.
Hundreds of health authorities around the world are now scrambling to track down passengers who were seated near the man for testing, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Julie Gerberding said Wednesday.
"There are two aspects to this," Gerberding said. "One is, is the patient himself highly infectious? Fortunately, in this case, he's probably not. But the other piece is this bacteria is a very deadly bacteria. We just have to err on the side of caution."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276336,00.html
He needs to be jailed!
Ted, we're talking about the same nut. 
Who knows how many people he exposed to the deadly disease with his around the world jaunt? I read one source where he characterizes himself as:
Yup, he's a right smart feller...except for not getting that bit about you have an highly infectious disease, you moron!
I had to add this. This is so absurd, it borders on funny. Supposedly the CDC is “desperately trying to reach passengers” who sat near the guy with TB. But, passengers who were on one of the several flights the infectious man took are calling the CDC only to get answers like this:
As if that weren’t enough, the infectious guy who thinks people are treating him badly wants to go to Denver for treatment at the National Jewish Research Center, which has a reputation for treating the most resistant forms of TB. OK, nice if you’ve got that kind of dough…I just hope he doesn’t take public transportation again to get there.
But wait! The absurdity doesn’t stop there! The article ends with:
HELLO? Europe to the US is over 8 hours???!!!
Who knows how many people he exposed to the deadly disease with his around the world jaunt? I read one source where he characterizes himself as:
QUOTE
"I'm a very well-educated, successful, intelligent person," he told the paper. "This is insane to me that I have an armed guard outside my door when I've cooperated with everything other than the whole solitary-confinement-in-Italy thing." Houston Chronicle
Yup, he's a right smart feller...except for not getting that bit about you have an highly infectious disease, you moron!
I had to add this. This is so absurd, it borders on funny. Supposedly the CDC is “desperately trying to reach passengers” who sat near the guy with TB. But, passengers who were on one of the several flights the infectious man took are calling the CDC only to get answers like this:
QUOTE
Karl Martin of Decatur said he didn't get answers when he called the CDC and the airlines.
"Are you telling me the CDC does not know where that person was sitting?" Martin said he asked the CDC when he called Tuesday. "What I'm looking for is whether I'm plus or minus five rows from this guy. They said they could not do that." Atlanta Journal-Constitution
"Are you telling me the CDC does not know where that person was sitting?" Martin said he asked the CDC when he called Tuesday. "What I'm looking for is whether I'm plus or minus five rows from this guy. They said they could not do that." Atlanta Journal-Constitution
As if that weren’t enough, the infectious guy who thinks people are treating him badly wants to go to Denver for treatment at the National Jewish Research Center, which has a reputation for treating the most resistant forms of TB. OK, nice if you’ve got that kind of dough…I just hope he doesn’t take public transportation again to get there.
But wait! The absurdity doesn’t stop there! The article ends with:
QUOTE
Dr. Charles Daley, who heads the respiratory diseases department at National Jewish Medical, said TB generally requires prolonged contact for transmission. In households, where family members are breathing the same air for hours, generally about a third of people get the disease, he said.
The only TB transmissions documented onboard airlines have occured on flight that was over eight hours.
(emphasis mine)The only TB transmissions documented onboard airlines have occured on flight that was over eight hours.
HELLO? Europe to the US is over 8 hours???!!! QUOTE
Yup, he's a right smart feller...except for not getting that bit about you have an highly infectious disease, you moron!
I had to add this. This is so absurd, it borders on funny. Supposedly the CDC is “desperately trying to reach passengers” who sat near the guy with TB. But, passengers who were on one of the several flights the infectious man took are calling the CDC only to get answers like this:
I had to add this. This is so absurd, it borders on funny. Supposedly the CDC is “desperately trying to reach passengers” who sat near the guy with TB. But, passengers who were on one of the several flights the infectious man took are calling the CDC only to get answers like this:
Good points. Did you know that this mans father-in-law works for the CDC! And this guy is a lawyer and his assertion that his doctor “suggested” he not go as opposed to NO don’t go is ludicrous. Odd we have not heard from the “doctor” who supposedly said this and you can bet every news agency in the darn world has tried.
This man is simply trying to wriggle out of the liability he knows he faces for his stupid behavior. Hopefully he doesn’t get away with it.
QUOTE(Ted @ Jun 5 2007, 02:27 PM)
QUOTE
Yup, he's a right smart feller...except for not getting that bit about you have an highly infectious disease, you moron!
I had to add this. This is so absurd, it borders on funny. Supposedly the CDC is “desperately trying to reach passengers” who sat near the guy with TB. But, passengers who were on one of the several flights the infectious man took are calling the CDC only to get answers like this:
I had to add this. This is so absurd, it borders on funny. Supposedly the CDC is “desperately trying to reach passengers” who sat near the guy with TB. But, passengers who were on one of the several flights the infectious man took are calling the CDC only to get answers like this:
Good points. Did you know that this mans father-in-law works for the CDC! And this guy is a lawyer and his assertion that his doctor “suggested” he not go as opposed to NO don’t go is ludicrous. Odd we have not heard from the “doctor” who supposedly said this and you can bet every news agency in the darn world has tried.
This man is simply trying to wriggle out of the liability he knows he faces for his stupid behavior. Hopefully he doesn’t get away with it.
Uh, the man in question, the atty, and his father, another atty, claim to have on tape exactly what was said by the health officials before our man left the country, and both men claim it does NOT constitute a prohibition on flying and claim the health officials said he likely was not contagious. If this tape is available, we'll see soon enough exactly what was said. Pretty smart guys, I'd say.
What is really funny and ironic here is that I have seen pictures of this infected man kissing his new wife in Europe, after their marriage. The wife's father is the CDC scientist, remember. I would suggest to you that if this woman were kissing this man, this horribly infected man, this man who will kill everyone on the airplane, that this TB, dangerous though it may be, must not be TOO contagious. Anyone know if the wife is now infected?
Why can't someone be quarantined in their own house? Unless you live in some tight little apt with HVAC shared with other units, this should work. Germs don't live forever--most die pretty soon upon exposure to regular atmospheric conditions.
QUOTE(quick)
Uh, the man in question, the atty, and his father, another atty, claim to have on tape exactly what was said by the health officials before our man left the country, and both men claim it does NOT constitute a prohibition on flying and claim the health officials said he likely was not contagious. If this tape is available, we'll see soon enough exactly what was said. Pretty smart guys, I'd say.
Isn't it against the law to tape someone without their knowledge? The more I hear about this guy, the more he disgusts me. Doctors did all they could legally do to impress upon the idiot that he should not travel.
QUOTE
But in testimony to a Senate subcommittee, federal and local health officials said Speaker took an international flight two days earlier than planned after he had been told he had a drug-resistant form of TB and should not travel.
Fulton County health officials told Speaker, "No you should not travel," said Dr. Steven R. Katkowsky, the health department's director. "Was he ordered not to travel? The answer to that was no. The local health department does not have the authority to prohibit or order somebody not to travel." Rocky Mtn News
Fulton County health officials told Speaker, "No you should not travel," said Dr. Steven R. Katkowsky, the health department's director. "Was he ordered not to travel? The answer to that was no. The local health department does not have the authority to prohibit or order somebody not to travel." Rocky Mtn News
Edited to add:
QUOTE
What is really funny and ironic here is that I have seen pictures of this infected man kissing his new wife in Europe, after their marriage. The wife's father is the CDC scientist, remember. I would suggest to you that if this woman were kissing this man, this horribly infected man, this man who will kill everyone on the airplane, that this TB, dangerous though it may be, must not be TOO contagious. Anyone know if the wife is now infected?
Sure, the guy doesn't believe he's a danger to anyone, so he just tells her "no, honey, I'm fine, everything's ok". TB is an insidious disease; a person can have it and seem perfectly fine. She could very well come down with it a year from now - who knows? Would you be willing to take that risk? I sure as heck wouldn't.
QUOTE
Why can't someone be quarantined in their own house? Unless you live in some tight little apt with HVAC shared with other units, this should work. Germs don't live forever--most die pretty soon upon exposure to regular atmospheric conditions.
If I had to offer an opinion on this, I'd say it's because he has already proven he can't be trusted not to endanger the public! TB could very well become the next pandemic. And this drug-resistant strain is scary. TB sufferers used to be committed to institutions until they died. This form of TB isn't just a "germ". It's a death sentence.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Apr 6 2007, 05:50 AM)
Here is one of those situations where the rights of the individual clash with the right of society at large to be protected.
Imagine being locked up in jail just for being sick.
That seems to be the case for a 27 year old Phoenix man who's been in a Maricopa County hospital prison ward for the last eight and a half months.
The man suffers from a very rare case of tuberculosis; something that could kill him before he gets out.
Robert Daniels is in solitary confinement. "I never thought that this could happen," he says. "I'm telling you, I'm sometimes sitting on a bed and I'm just crying because of all the quietness."
"I'm not being isolated, I'm being incarcerated."
For the past 8 months he has been confined to his room, equipped with a special ventilation system. His only contact with the outside world is the medical staff who feed and treat him. And a telephone.
Arizona health officials say they told Daniels that he was infectious and repeatedly warned him to wear a mask in public. He didn't. link
The questions for debate are:
2. Would it be more humane if Dan1. Are the civil rights of Robert Daniels being violated by the state forcibly incarcerating/quarantining him or is his refusal to wear a mask giving them no other choice?
iels were confined to a hospital or some other health care facility instead of a jail?
3. Are we heading down the proverbial "slippery slope" where everyone who has a communicable disease is at risk of being locked up if they act in a irresponsible manner?
Imagine being locked up in jail just for being sick.
That seems to be the case for a 27 year old Phoenix man who's been in a Maricopa County hospital prison ward for the last eight and a half months.
The man suffers from a very rare case of tuberculosis; something that could kill him before he gets out.
Robert Daniels is in solitary confinement. "I never thought that this could happen," he says. "I'm telling you, I'm sometimes sitting on a bed and I'm just crying because of all the quietness."
"I'm not being isolated, I'm being incarcerated."
For the past 8 months he has been confined to his room, equipped with a special ventilation system. His only contact with the outside world is the medical staff who feed and treat him. And a telephone.
Arizona health officials say they told Daniels that he was infectious and repeatedly warned him to wear a mask in public. He didn't. link
The questions for debate are:
2. Would it be more humane if Dan1. Are the civil rights of Robert Daniels being violated by the state forcibly incarcerating/quarantining him or is his refusal to wear a mask giving them no other choice?
iels were confined to a hospital or some other health care facility instead of a jail?
3. Are we heading down the proverbial "slippery slope" where everyone who has a communicable disease is at risk of being locked up if they act in a irresponsible manner?
This guy was told to wear a mask and he refused to do so. From what I understand he was told more than once. Yes I think he should be locked up. Anytime a person has something that could effect others and are not willing to take every precaution to safe guard that from happening then they lose the right to be among others. And if they infect someone by not taking precautions they should be held accountable.
And I don't feel that a hospital is the right place for some things. Infections run wild in our hospitals now. So by putting someone in a place where people have low emune systems for various reasons is not a good idea. I mean you would have to post a guard by his room to pervent him from taking a stroll around the hospital.
To me this guy was given a choice and he chose badly. Now the choices are made for him. He lost that right.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.