Arizona's health officials warned him to wear a mask. He chose not to do so.
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.
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?
2007-04-13 09:08:27 · 8 answers · asked by Last Great Stoner 1 in Travel ➔ Travel (General) ➔ Health & Safety
I believe that people can be quarantined for infectious disease - and it saved a lot of people from polio in the 40's.
People who knowingly spread AIDS have been successfully prosecuted for their actions - essentially murdering others, since there is no cure. Those who unknowingly passed it on, or who passed it on while trying to be safe were not prosecuted. It sounds like that is the same thing happening here (although, it also sounds like there must be more to the story). If he was given instructions to follow by the county government to keep others safe - wear a mask - , and he chose not to follow them, then he would have to suffer the consequences of that choice. He is not locked up because he is sick, but rather because he refused to follow safety procedures, thus endangering a multitude of others. This is true of all choices - we are free to make them, but we must be willing to accept the consequences. Is it truly a case of just acting irresponsibly, or is it a case of endangerment?
Having said that, there must be a way to quarantine someone more humanely, with some sort of protection for those with whom he comes into contact. Perhaps a standard ICU with a window through which he can see and talk to his family.
2007-04-13 09:33:58 · answer #1 · answered by Cat 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
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.
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.
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.
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.
2007-04-13 16:39:26 · answer #2 · answered by Mikey 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In this particular case, I do believe it to be a crime because he is knowling risking the health of the public.
A comparable example as many have brought up is unprotected sex whilst being aware of having HIV. Currently in Australia, a man - Michael Neal - is on trial for doing this for the purpose of infecting others. (There are some horrible people in the world...) Whilst this is purposely infecting others it "highlights the gap between public health and criminal laws and their administration."
In your mentioned case, it may well be (and I believe) this man did not want to purposely infect others but he was/is definately aware of the risk. So the authorities had to take action of some kind.
2007-04-13 22:25:44 · answer #3 · answered by purplebuggy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
All he had to do was wear a mask!
Does he care so little about everyone else's health that he would go without a mask?!?
How rude of him!
2007-04-14 15:25:09 · answer #4 · answered by Terri 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Obviously being sick, as such, is not a crime. Knowlingly endangering others might well be, though.
If somebody has AIDS, eg, knows about it and continues to have unprotected sexual intercourse it is a crime, definitely.
2007-04-13 16:21:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
A crime? No. But they need to be isolated/confined (whatever) so that the rest of us don't get it....
2007-04-13 16:18:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Dont you get sick
2007-04-17 07:33:33 · answer #7 · answered by SSS 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if you sneeze on a cop
2007-04-13 16:15:37 · answer #8 · answered by pranja 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋