This is just a hypothetical question. If a person has a highly contagious disease that is deadly to almost everyone who gets it should the gov't be able to forcibly put that person in quarentein? Say for example they have smallpox. It is an airborne spread illness that they think killed over a billion people in the world before they got rid of it. So if someone has it should the gov't be able to tell them what to do?
2006-10-08 12:36:05 · 9 answers · asked by Goldylocks 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Other - Arts & Humanities
The flu can kill people. Should they make everyone with the flu stay home?
2006-10-08 12:50:55 · update #1
If you're speaking of a pandemic, yes. They will isolate entire towns if necessary (and do even worse if it's a non-American government). Generally speaking, being put into quarantine by the government would also likely give you the best medical care you can get if only because they want to create vaccines to protect the rest of the population.
As recently as the early 1900's America would close down schools and put warning notices up on the houses of quarantined people that were printed on color paper to indicate which illness was keeping the household locked down.
As to personal rights, so many people are waving that around that the country is weakening daily. We as citizens have some responsibilities to our government and people. Why would any body be as selfish as to NOT go into quarantine if it endangered everybody. You're either going to die from it or survive, regardless of where you are. As long as you can still have contact with your family, what other reasons would there be for you not to go?
2006-10-08 13:16:48 · answer #1 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The government does have the power to quarantine people with contagious diseases, and they still do it. It is for diseases that can be spread thru the air or casual contact. AIDS cannot be acquired in these ways. That is why people with AIDS aren't quarantined.
2006-10-08 19:48:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. It's a violation of personal rights. Granted that if someone were to have such a disease they should quarantine themselves. But to have a forcible quarantine would not be a good thing. The ramifications of such a thing would be detrimental. Families would be destroyed and the government would collapse from the distrust it created.
2006-10-08 19:47:57 · answer #3 · answered by Joules 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The (U.S.) government DOES quarantine people with highly contagious diseases. What is hypothetical about this question?
2006-10-08 19:45:11 · answer #4 · answered by pat z 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Definitely. It has only been in recent years that politically correct highly contagious diseases have not been quarantined.
2006-10-08 19:44:16 · answer #5 · answered by Clown Knows 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, otherwise besides the obvious outcomes, you give that disease to someone and his or her loved one will probably kill you. It's for your protection and health as well as that of everyone else's.
2006-10-08 19:43:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
oh yeah and the goverment will
havent you heard that plan A for the bird flu is to make sick people stay in thier homes and die.
2006-10-08 19:45:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course they should. They use to do that from TB to polio to small pox. Now they get AIDS and would never think to quartine them. Why did it become socially unacceptable?
2006-10-08 19:38:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
US government used to do it with people who had TB.
2006-10-08 19:39:14 · answer #9 · answered by appletini7 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋