NationStates Jolt Archive


What should be done to this guy?

Drunk commies deleted
31-05-2007, 16:49
A man who describes himself as "a very well-educated, successful, intelligent person" who also happens to have extremely drug resistent TB got on a flight to Europe, was ordered to turn himself over to Italian health authorities, but refused and flew back to Canada then drove to the US is now in enforced quarantine.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/us/30cnd-tb.html?_r=1&ref=health&oref=slogin

The recycled air on the airplane could have infected others, but this smart, successful asshole didn't really give a shit. Personally I think that if anyone becomes infected because of his actions he should be charged with a crime. Something with a pretty harsh prison sentence.
Remote Observer
31-05-2007, 16:50
Third thread in a row on the same topic... ;)
Draconic Gehenna
31-05-2007, 16:51
Throw him in jail and let him become somebody's B***ch
|
|
V
If he doesn't die and when he heals, of course
Remote Observer
31-05-2007, 16:51
I once again blame the badgers.

The badgers in your pants?
Ifreann
31-05-2007, 16:52
I once again blame the badgers.
Telesha
31-05-2007, 16:54
I once again blame the badgers.

That's just what the bears want you to think...
Hynation
31-05-2007, 16:54
I once again blame the badgers.

What do you have against badgers?
Ifreann
31-05-2007, 16:56
What do you have against badgers?

A small but highly trained team of mercenaries.
Hynation
31-05-2007, 16:57
A small but highly trained team of mercenaries.

pfft. You're paranoid those badgers live their lives one day at a time like you.:rolleyes:

It's the Crabs you gotta worry about :eek:
Neo Art
31-05-2007, 16:59
you know...I don't know. I mean it's easy to say "he traveled and could have got someone sick, he's a monster!"

But at what point does this get reduced to the rediculous?

I had a flu, an elderly woman got infected, and died.

I had a cold, someone with HIV or an otherwise compromised immune system got sick, and died.

at what point can we restrict someone's freedoms because they might pose a danger to someone, not through their actions, not through violence or intent or otherwise, but simply because of a disease he carries? He "refused to turn himself over to the authorities" perhaps, but then again, at some level, why should he? Being sick is not a crime, and I'm uncomfortable with the fact that one who is sick can be forceably locked up, for doing nothing wrong, and then made a criminal for refusing to do so.
Remote Observer
31-05-2007, 17:00
you know...I don't know. I mean it's easy to say "he traveled and could have got someone sick, he's a monster!"

But at what point does this get reduced to the rediculous?

I had a flu, an elderly woman got infected, and died.

I had a cold, someone with HIV or an otherwise compromised immune system got sick, and died.

at what point can we restrict someone's freedoms because they might pose a danger to someone, not through their actions, not through violence or intent or otherwise, but simply because of a disease he carries? He "refused to turn himself over to the authorities" perhaps, but then again, at some level, why should he? Being sick is not a crime, and I'm uncomfortable with the fact that one who is sick can be forceably locked up, for doing nothing wrong, and then made a criminal for refusing to do so.

When the disease is easily transmitted from person to person, and it's lethal, and it's incurable and untreatable.

Of course, you can side with the ACLU, which is against any quarantine procedures, regardless of how lethal or transmissible or untreatable the disease.

We should all die together, respecting the rights of the sick...
Draconic Gehenna
31-05-2007, 17:03
What do you have against badgers?

They are Hufflepuffs. Wussies
Andaluciae
31-05-2007, 17:05
Secured quarantine.
Remote Observer
31-05-2007, 17:08
The ACLU have actually weighed in on this?

Read the other thread.
Ifreann
31-05-2007, 17:08
When the disease is easily transmitted from person to person, and it's lethal, and it's incurable and untreatable.

Of course, you can side with the ACLU, which is against any quarantine procedures, regardless of how lethal or transmissible or untreatable the disease.

We should all die together, respecting the rights of the sick...

The ACLU have actually weighed in on this?
Neo Art
31-05-2007, 17:11
When the disease is easily transmitted from person to person, and it's lethal, and it's incurable and untreatable.

A cold is easily transmitted from person to person.
A cold is incureable
A cold can be lethal

As I said, your clarifications are....lacking.

Of course, you can side with the ACLU

I've been a member for 15 years, why should I stop now? You know, one of my favorite quotes from any movie is from the american president:

For the record: yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU. But the more important question is why aren't you, Bob? Now, this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question: Why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the Constitution?
Remote Observer
31-05-2007, 17:13
A cold is easily transmitted from person to person.
A cold is incureable
A cold can be lethal

As I said, your clarifications are....lacking.

Federal law and regulations concerning lethal transmissible diseases is pretty clear.
Neo Art
31-05-2007, 17:16
Federal law and regulations concerning lethal transmissible diseases is pretty clear.

then I suggest you cite to them, rather than trying to come up with your own easily defeated definitions.

And, more to point, I disagree with federal law, isn't that clear by now?
Ifreann
31-05-2007, 17:19
A cold is easily transmitted from person to person.
A cold is incureable
A cold can be lethal

As I said, your clarifications are....lacking.

Isn't TB a lot more dangerous than the common cold?
Remote Observer
31-05-2007, 17:22
then I suggest you cite to them, rather than trying to come up with your own easily defeated definitions.

And, more to point, I disagree with federal law, isn't that clear by now?

So, your argument is that even if someone had this TB, or smallpox, you would gladly work and live in the same space with them?

You would accept the deaths of other people as the price for the freedom of the sick person?
Neo Art
31-05-2007, 17:22
Isn't TB a lot more dangerous than the common cold?

absolutly. Now where do we draw this line of "a lot more dangerous"? RO only said that which is easily transmittable, incurable, and potentially fatal should result in quaranteen.

A cold is all 3. In fact, considering we have never, EVER, not even once, cured a virus, any airborne virus could meet that definition.
UpwardThrust
31-05-2007, 17:22
A man who describes himself as "a very well-educated, successful, intelligent person" who also happens to have extremely drug resistent TB got on a flight to Europe, was ordered to turn himself over to Italian health authorities, but refused and flew back to Canada then drove to the US is now in enforced quarantine.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/us/30cnd-tb.html?_r=1&ref=health&oref=slogin

The recycled air on the airplane could have infected others, but this smart, successful asshole didn't really give a shit. Personally I think that if anyone becomes infected because of his actions he should be charged with a crime. Something with a pretty harsh prison sentence.

He knowingly endangered others lives to start with he should be charged with Endangerment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangerment
UpwardThrust
31-05-2007, 17:24
A cold is easily transmitted from person to person.
A cold is incureable
A cold can be lethal


And yet the effects are not nearly as bad as TB, there is a reason health care facilities at least out here are required to do a yearly mantox shot for all employees and a full screening of new patients (at least in long term care)
Remote Observer
31-05-2007, 17:27
A cold is easily transmitted from person to person.
A cold is incureable
A cold can be lethal

As I said, your clarifications are....lacking.



I've been a member for 15 years, why should I stop now? You know, one of my favorite quotes from any movie is from the american president:

The quote is specious.

1. Just because you aren't a member of the ACLU doesn't mean you don't uphold the Constitution.
2. The ACLU appears to be at odds now with the majority of Constitutional scholars on the 2nd Amendment. And, it appears that rulings on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment will go contrary to the views of the ACLU. Yet, they aren't defending it as an individual right... so much for upholding the Bill of Rights, which after all, is enumerating the rights of the People...
Neo Art
31-05-2007, 17:27
So, your argument is that even if someone had this TB, or smallpox, you would gladly work and live in the same space with them?

No.

You would accept the deaths of other people as the price for the freedom of the sick person?

I accept the deaths in lots of circumstances as the price of freedom and civil liberties.

I accept that sometimes a cop might have really good reason to think someone is going to kill someone, but lacking probable cause to arrest, that person will kill.

I accept that people will die in crimes that could have been prevented through monitoring phone lines

I accept that automobile accidents would be vastily reduced if we imposed a curfew beyond 6pm.

I accept that a LOT of deaths are caused by the exercise of freedoms. It happens every day. If the government monitored phonecalls, arrested and detained on mere suspicion, and imposed a 6pm curfew, a lot less people would die.

I accept their deaths as necessary for the preservation of freedom, absolutly. Why would this be any different?
Neo Art
31-05-2007, 17:28
And yet the effects are not nearly as bad as TB

oh he didn't say anything about EFFECTS now. If you wish to shift goalposts, at least do so honeslty.
Neo Art
31-05-2007, 17:30
1. Just because you aren't a member of the ACLU doesn't mean you don't uphold the Constitution.

Yet attacking the ACLU certainly does create that implication, doesn't it

2. The ACLU appears to be at odds now with the majority of Constitutional scholars on the 2nd Amendment. And, it appears that rulings on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment will go contrary to the views of the ACLU. Yet, they aren't defending it as an individual right... so much for upholding the Bill of Rights, which after all, is enumerating the rights of the People...

So for the ACLU to defend the constitution, they should defend it as YOU interpret it, not as they interpret it? What kind of bizarro world do you live in?
Neo Art
31-05-2007, 17:30
Who is shifting goal posts? I was not the one that set the original ones so how can i shift them?

Sorry, looking at the wrong name. In general, I didn't address that because it wasn't raised.
UpwardThrust
31-05-2007, 17:30
oh he didn't say anything about EFFECTS now. If you wish to shift goalposts, at least do so honeslty.

Who is shifting goal posts? I was not the one that set the original ones so how can i shift them?
Khadgar
31-05-2007, 17:52
Isn't TB a lot more dangerous than the common cold?

Vastly, a TB infected person can cause an epidemic very quickly if their strain is sufficiently hardy.
UpwardThrust
31-05-2007, 17:55
Sorry, looking at the wrong name. In general, I didn't address that because it wasn't raised.

Thats fine I was not trying to disprove your statement so much as emphasize what may make this situation more of a necessity for public health then the cold scenario
Remote Observer
31-05-2007, 17:56
Yet attacking the ACLU certainly does create that implication, doesn't it

No, it doesn't. That's a logical fallacy and you know it.


So for the ACLU to defend the constitution, they should defend it as YOU interpret it, not as they interpret it? What kind of bizarro world do you live in?

For them to interpret it in a way that goes contrary to the majority of current Constitutional law scholars implies that they are interpreting it in a way that they prefer, such as their recently arrested leader who fought so hard to defend access to child porn, and was caught with thousands of child porn files on his computer.

Just because they interpret it doesn't mean they are correct, or don't have any self-interest. Yet another fallacy you wish people would just swallow.
Neo Art
31-05-2007, 17:58
For them to interpret it in a way that goes contrary to the majority of current Constitutional law scholars implies that they are interpreting it in a way that they prefer

so then your answer is yes, for them to defend the constitution they must do so the way the "majority" (and interesting you use that word without backing it up) interprets it, not how THEY interpret it.

Interesting that. So we should be high tailing it out of Iraq right now huh, even though that's a position you have argued against, because the majority believe that to be the best idea?
Remote Observer
31-05-2007, 18:01
so then your answer is yes, for them to defend the constitution they must do so the way the "majority" (and interesting you use that word without backing it up) interprets it, not how THEY interpret it.

Interesting that. So we should be high tailing it out of Iraq right now huh, even though that's a position you have argued against, because the majority believe that to be the best idea?

The majority in your case are people who are mostly without any real qualification to make judgments.

Constitutional law scholars, are qualified. See the difference?
Minaris
31-05-2007, 18:07
The majority in your case are people who are mostly without any real qualification to make judgments.

Constitutional law scholars, are qualified. See the difference?

All I see are people with the mental capacity to interpret text. A piece of paper does not indicate anything about one's intelligence or interpretive ability.
Neo Art
31-05-2007, 18:07
The majority in your case are people who are mostly without any real qualification to make judgments.

Constitutional law scholars, are qualified. See the difference?

oooh, you mean like lawyers? You mean...the people who work for the ACLU?
Remote Observer
31-05-2007, 18:08
All I see are people with the mental capacity to interpret text. A piece of paper does not indicate anything about one's intelligence or interpretive ability.

Most Americans don't even know where Iraq is on a map.

The head of the House Intelligence Committee didn't even know the difference between Sunni and Shia.

I see you prefer ignorant people making your decisions for you.
Dempublicents1
31-05-2007, 18:26
He should be kept in quarantine until he is less likely to pass on the disease. He should not be able to travel on an airplane without medical clearance. And, since he has shown such reckless disregard for others, he should be tracked by the authorities when he is released from quarantine.

Is it a restriction of his rights? Absolutely - one that would be unnecessary if he wasn't so gung-ho about endangering others.
Minaris
31-05-2007, 18:30
Most Americans don't even know where Iraq is on a map.

The head of the House Intelligence Committee didn't even know the difference between Sunni and Shia.

I see you prefer ignorant people making your decisions for you.

Let's do a dance for the straw man!

*Dances*
Remote Observer
31-05-2007, 18:32
Let's do a dance for the straw man!

*Dances*

You need help. It's not a strawman argument.

You said that you prefer that everyone be able to vote (or be polled) on whether or not to leave Iraq. And you mentioned the only qualification would be the ability to read text.

Sorry, that's not good enough.

The majority of Americans don't know anything at all about Iraq - and if the majority don't know, they shouldn't be asked in a poll what their opinion is.
Neo Art
31-05-2007, 18:51
Is it a restriction of his rights? Absolutely - one that would be unnecessary if he wasn't so gung-ho about endangering others.

They wanted to quarantene him in the first place. What a nonsensical proposition. He deserves to have his rights restricted by force because he didn't volunteer to have his rights restricted.

What nonsense if we apply this outwards. You didn't let us search your bag, so now we get to search it by force.
Dempublicents1
31-05-2007, 18:59
They wanted to quarantene him in the first place.

From what I understand, they didn't. Much like the guy in Europe, they asked him to take precautions and stated that he should not get on an airplane. They weren't telling him, from what I understand, that he could never travel - simply not to do so until his disease was under control. He chose to ignore that.

What a nonsensical proposition. He deserves to have his rights restricted by force because he didn't volunteer to have his rights restricted.

What nonsense if we apply this outwards. You didn't let us search your bag, so now we get to search it by force.

This isn't a "you might be carrying something dangerous in there." This is a "You are carrying a dangerous disease and not taking the precautions to make sure you don't spread it." I see little difference between what this guy did and an AIDS patient going around cutting himself and spraying blood all over others. He knew he was a danger to others, and chose to ignore that fact - thus endangering their lives.

The purpose of the government is protection of its citizens. That includes preventing an epidemic of drug-resistant TB.
Neo Art
31-05-2007, 20:11
I see little difference between what this guy did and an AIDS patient going around cutting himself and spraying blood all over others.

I do. The person with AIDS spraying blood is an act that is generally for the purpose of spreading HIV. This individual did not do anything than what people do every single day as an exercise of their liberty. Go out in public and get on a plane. I did that a few weeks ago. Millions do it, every day. He did not do anything extraordinary or unusual.


He knew he was a danger to others, and chose to ignore that fact - thus endangering their lives.

You know how many fatal car accidents there are every year? You are a danger to others every time you get into a car. You endanger lives, every time you get into a car. Should we not allow you to get into a car?

Stoves can on occassion start fires, I endanger lives every time I use my stove. Should I be prevented from cooking dinner?

life carries some degree of risk. Now I'm not necessarily saying containing him is bad, I am rejecting the argument of "he's a risk!" We're all a risk to ourselves and others in virtually everything we do. life carries risks. My question is WHEN does the risk become to great, and I haven't seen a good answer to that.
Neo Art
31-05-2007, 20:14
to be simple, we can't be ambiguous when it comes to situations that merit restrictions of freedoms.

You say it's ok because he is a risk. We are all a risk to somebody at some time. "A risk" doesn't cut it. "A risk" isn't sufficient. If we curtail freedoms every time there's a risk, we would have no freedoms left.

I don't accept "when there is a risk" as a sufficient answer to the question of when is it appropriate to restrict someone's rights and freedoms. We need to be clearer than that, because I can make an argument that just about everything you do will be a risk to someone, at some point, in some circumstances.
Kroisistan
31-05-2007, 20:14
I'm sure reckless endangerment fits. If someone else dies because of this, then it's negligent homicide.
Neo Art
31-05-2007, 20:17
I'm sure reckless endangerment fits. If someone else dies because of this, then it's negligent homicide.

you know, I'm not so sure. I don't know how many courts are willing to go down the line that can imply a precident of "if you're sick and you go out in public, you comitted a felony". That's a really big problem for a precidential value.
Kroisistan
31-05-2007, 20:21
you know, I'm not so sure. I don't know how many courts are willing to go down the line that can imply a precident of "if you're sick and you go out in public, you comitted a felony". That's a really big problem for a precidential value.

If you are specifically warned that your illness poses a serious public health risk, and you choose to ignore it, you are endangering others and committing a crime.

It's not just being ill and making others ill. You must know you pose a serious risk, and consciously choose to ignore that fact.
Iniika
31-05-2007, 20:33
Don't the other people on the plane have any rights?

They weren't warned this person had XDR-TB.

This person knew he had XDR-TB, undoubtedly knew the implications of the disease and it's contractability and yet still willingly got onto a confined space with many other people to share the same air with them for several hours.

If anybody else on that flight contracts this disease which is fatal, I do think crimial charges ought to be filed, and I do think, for the good of the general populous that he should be quarentined.
Rubiconic Crossings
31-05-2007, 20:42
A man who describes himself as "a very well-educated, successful, intelligent person" who also happens to have extremely drug resistent TB got on a flight to Europe, was ordered to turn himself over to Italian health authorities, but refused and flew back to Canada then drove to the US is now in enforced quarantine.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/us/30cnd-tb.html?_r=1&ref=health&oref=slogin

The recycled air on the airplane could have infected others, but this smart, successful asshole didn't really give a shit. Personally I think that if anyone becomes infected because of his actions he should be charged with a crime. Something with a pretty harsh prison sentence.

Total isolation until cured then charged with reckless endangerment or attempted greavious bodily harm.
Neo Art
31-05-2007, 21:04
If you are specifically warned that your illness poses a serious public health risk, and you choose to ignore it, you are endangering others and committing a crime.

It's not just being ill and making others ill. You must know you pose a serious risk, and consciously choose to ignore that fact.

I know the prima facie elements of reckless endangerment. I am saying, at what point can we safely say that an ill person is an unacceptable risk to be in public?

Which is to say, that if this idnividual did nothing more than get on a plane with an illness, how much risk must that pose? It is not that he took an overt act that is in and of itself dangerous (getting on a plane) it is that he got on a plane, with certain factual circumstances being beyond his control (his illness).

In short he did nothing that is particularly risky, dangerous, or threatening but for his illness, which he has no control over. As I have asked all along in this thread, at what point is the risk acceptable to deny someone rights and to consider their actions "reckless" not for what they did, but for what they did, whan affected by circumstances out of their control?
Dempublicents1
31-05-2007, 21:04
I do. The person with AIDS spraying blood is an act that is generally for the purpose of spreading HIV.

Maybe it isn't. Maybe he just thought it would be funny to watch someone get hit with blood and happens to have AIDS. Why should a person with AIDS be treated any differently if he sprays someone with blood (or other bodily fluids) than a person who does not? He's just going about his life....

This individual did not do anything than what people do every single day as an exercise of their liberty. Go out in public and get on a plane. I did that a few weeks ago. Millions do it, every day. He did not do anything extraordinary or unusual.

You don't have a drug-resistant form of TB, do you?

You know how many fatal car accidents there are every year? You are a danger to others every time you get into a car. You endanger lives, every time you get into a car. Should we not allow you to get into a car?

I have to take precautions to try and ensure that I don't harm others when I drive a car. If I am, for some reason, unable to take such precautions, I am not allowed to drive a car.

This guy endangers others lives merely by breathing around them. He endangers them even more when he is in an environment where the air is constantly recycled - like an airplane. I see no issue with requiring him to take precautions - perhaps going as far as cutting out some activities altogether - when he presents such a risk.

life carries some degree of risk. Now I'm not necessarily saying containing him is bad, I am rejecting the argument of "he's a risk!" We're all a risk to ourselves and others in virtually everything we do. life carries risks. My question is WHEN does the risk become to great, and I haven't seen a good answer to that.

How about when the person is spreading a deadly disease that medical science can do next to nothing about? With a drug-resistant form like this, the best medicine can do is keep a person isolated and hope that their own immune system can isolate it. Even if the immune system does so, the disease is not cured. It is still resident in the person's system - merely inactive. If their immune system is then compromised (whether it be by another disease or simply by old age), the TB will begin proliferating once again and most likely lead to death.

you know, I'm not so sure. I don't know how many courts are willing to go down the line that can imply a precident of "if you're sick and you go out in public, you comitted a felony". That's a really big problem for a precidential value.

Put it this way. It isn't illegal to smoke when you have little reason to believe it will cause a fire. However, if you knowingly carry a lit cigarette in a building with a gas leak and it explodes, you are legally liable. If you attempt to walk into a building with a gas leak while carrying a lit cigarette, the authorities can bar your entrance, even if you would otherwise be allowed in.

Likewise, a person with a cold has little reason to think that getting on an airplane will kill anyone. Sure, in some screwed up circumstances, it might, but it is highly unlikely. A person with drug-resistant TB (or really any currently highly contagious TB, for that matter) who gets on an airplane has every reason to believe that his actions will lead to the death of others.
Zarakon
31-05-2007, 21:18
Wow, to think I was being appalled that this asshole was being denied computer and television while he was quarantined in another country. Wait for him to get better, then toss him in a mental hospital. There is clearly something wrong with someone who is that...Well, he's either stupid, doesn't care about anyone else, or is unable to think about the consequences of his actions. Either way, he shouldn't be in society.
Neo Art
31-05-2007, 21:21
Put it this way. It isn't illegal to smoke when you have little reason to believe it will cause a fire. However, if you knowingly carry a lit cigarette in a building with a gas leak and it explodes, you are legally liable. If you attempt to walk into a building with a gas leak while carrying a lit cigarette, the authorities can bar your entrance, even if you would otherwise be allowed in.

Ahhh, but here's the difference. I can put the cigarette out.
Dempublicents1
31-05-2007, 21:22
Wow, to think I was being appalled that this asshole was being denied computer and television while he was quarantined in another country. Wait for him to get better, then toss him in a mental hospital. There is clearly something wrong with someone who is that...Well, he's either stupid, doesn't care about anyone else, or is unable to think about the consequences of his actions. Either way, he shouldn't be in society.

I'm pretty sure this is a different guy, actually.
Dempublicents1
31-05-2007, 21:26
Ahhh, but here's the difference. I can put the cigarette out.

So it's easier to deal with. That doesn't break the analogy.

This guy could take all sorts of precautions. He could wear a mask with a filter. He could stay out of places where air is recycled. He could get regularly checked so that he knows when his infection is active - assuming that his immune system can currently fight it off.

Instead, he knowingly and intentionally got on an airplane - where the air is recycled - without even taking the precaution of a mask. He did not warn the airline, workers, or passengers of the threat he posed. He is trying to claim that he did not realize how risky it was at first, which would fly except for the fact that, when asked to report to the authorities because of the risk he posed, he instead GOT ON ANOTHER FREAKING AIRPLANE - to Canada this time, since he knew he couldn't fly into the US.

If he isn't going to take the precautions to protect others that he should, then he can and should be forced to do so - and he should be held criminally liable for anyone he infects.
UpwardThrust
31-05-2007, 21:26
Ahhh, but here's the difference. I can put the cigarette out.

So sense the cigarette is optional and the TB is not he should be allowed to knowingly endanger others without their consent?

I am all for individual freedoms but this is silly to say the least
Keruvalia
31-05-2007, 21:28
What good is being sick if you can't share it with others?

I say give the guy a medal. He's my hero!
New Limacon
31-05-2007, 22:32
When the disease is easily transmitted from person to person, and it's lethal, and it's incurable and untreatable.

Is TB really incurable?
Dempublicents1
31-05-2007, 22:40
Is TB really incurable?

It can be. With this strain, it is likely that it will never be fully cured. If the majority of the bacteria are killed off, it is likely that the immune system can essentially "quarantine" what is left. However, if the immune system becomes compromised by other diseases or simply weakens due to old age, the disease is likely to reemerge - with only the extremely drug-resistant strain present.

Even with the usual strains of TB, a very long antibiotic treatment (months to a year) is necessary to fully rid the body of the bacteria. Problem is, most people won't stick with a drug regimen that long, especially if they aren't experiencing symptoms. So only the drug-resistant bacteria are then left, and the next case of active TB they have is harder (if not impossible) to kill off. This problem becomes chronic.
Drunk commies deleted
31-05-2007, 23:03
Ahhh, but here's the difference. I can put the cigarette out.

Mental patients who pose a significant threat to others can be locked away. This guy is in a similar position. It's not his fault he's sick, he can't choose to get better on his own, but he poses a significant threat and can be locked away.

This sort of thing doesn't apply to people with a cold because the vast majority of people exposed to that won't die. Most won't even miss work because of it. Almost none will need expensive medical treatment. There is a big difference between being exposed to the common cold and being exposed to drug resistant TB.
Drunk commies deleted
31-05-2007, 23:08
What good is being sick if you can't share it with others?

I say give the guy a medal. He's my hero!

Yeah, and infect the guy who pins it on to him with smallpox. It's gotten kind of boring since the WHO eradicated variola.
Keruvalia
31-05-2007, 23:45
Yeah, and infect the guy who pins it on to him with smallpox. It's gotten kind of boring since the WHO eradicated variola.

*kicks dirt*

Damn WHO!
Kroisistan
01-06-2007, 00:15
I know the prima facie elements of reckless endangerment. I am saying, at what point can we safely say that an ill person is an unacceptable risk to be in public?

Which is to say, that if this idnividual did nothing more than get on a plane with an illness, how much risk must that pose? It is not that he took an overt act that is in and of itself dangerous (getting on a plane) it is that he got on a plane, with certain factual circumstances being beyond his control (his illness).

In short he did nothing that is particularly risky, dangerous, or threatening but for his illness, which he has no control over. As I have asked all along in this thread, at what point is the risk acceptable to deny someone rights and to consider their actions "reckless" not for what they did, but for what they did, whan affected by circumstances out of their control?

If the illness is dangerous enough that it poses a risk to the lives of others, or has the capability of crippling or inflicting serious pain upon others, then it's reasonable to restrict the rights of the individual with that illness. The doctrine is, in an ideal world, that one's right to swing one's fist ends at another's nose.
Neo Art
01-06-2007, 00:37
If the illness is dangerous enough that it poses a risk to the lives of others, or has the capability of crippling or inflicting serious pain upon others, then it's reasonable to restrict the rights of the individual with that illness.

And I have said before, given the right circumstances and the right "victim", a cold can be a risk to the lives of others. That is not a sufficient definition.

That doesn't work.
Kroisistan
01-06-2007, 00:45
And I have said before, given the right circumstances and the right "victim", a cold can be a risk to the lives of others. That is not a sufficient definition.

That doesn't work.

I would say it must be tempered with the reasonable person test, like is used for negligence cases.

Would a reasonable person assume a cold was going to seriously harm his fellow passengers? Absolutely not. Would a reasonable person assume, after having specifically been told so, that his TB would harm other passengers? Yes.
Zarakon
01-06-2007, 00:47
I'm pretty sure this is a different guy, actually.

Jesus, people are getting drug-resistant strains of TB like party favors these days. Was there a sale, or what?
CthulhuFhtagn
01-06-2007, 01:58
Isn't TB a lot more dangerous than the common cold?

Let me put it this way. It's nickname is The White Death, in an allusion to the name of the plague that killed nearly one third of the entire population of the world.
Dempublicents1
01-06-2007, 02:14
Jesus, people are getting drug-resistant strains of TB like party favors these days. Was there a sale, or what?

Not really. I think the reason we're hearing so much about it is the fact that it's still very rare. And because the asshats who get it aren't willing to take precautions to keep it that way.