> Who cares about your morals when there's an epidemic ? I actually find this to be an interesting ethical dilemma. On one hand, I would probably agree that th

> Who cares about your morals when there's an epidemic ? I actually find this to be an interesting ethical dilemma. On one hand, I would probably agree that this specific situation demands a degree of urgency and action such that the rights of an individual should be subjugated, to some extent, to the needs of society as a whole. On the other hand, if we do accept that there are scenarios where this is a necessary trade-off, who gets to decide which outbreaks qualify? Could someone just invent one to circumvent medical ethics requirements whenever they prove inconvenient? I guess it's not entirely dissimilar to arguments over limits on freedom of expression in cases where a person's speech can be deemed to cause harm to others (e.g. the canonical yelling fire in a crowded theatre). Where and how do you draw the line?