10 ms·
Woman with tuberculosis ordered to jail for refusing treatment
- woopwoop 4y agoThey've flagrantly violated her right to infect strangers with a deadly respiratory disease.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- czx4f4bd 4y agoBefore somebody comes in here railing about government overreach, she was ordered to get treated or stay in isolation in January 2022 and hasn't complied, instead going out in the community and putting others at risk. Moreover, this was her 17th court hearing, so it's not like this was their immediate reaction. From the article: > But, the department seemed to reach a breaking point this January. In addition to the woman's defiance hitting the one-year mark, on January 11 she was involved in a car accident as a passenger. The incident clearly showed the woman was violating her self-isolation order, which put the driver at risk of infection. Additionally, the woman went to the emergency department a day later complaining of chest pain and did not tell doctors about her active tuberculosis case, putting them and other hospital staff at risk. When they did lung X-rays, they initially suspected she had cancer. But in fact, the images showed that her tuberculosis case was worsening.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- eduction 4y agoThe facts you quote are orthogonal to the notion that this is government overreach. If it’s government overreach to order her to get medical treatment it doesn’t matter how much notice she’s been given.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y agoOne of the oldest powers and responsibilities of government has been to try to prevent the spread of deadly communicable diseases. Ordering her isolation and treatment is well within the historical powers of governments.
- eduction 4y agoFor someone who disagrees or objects to the exercise of these powers, the amount of notice given before forcing treatment is not relevant.
- wslack 4y agoIt's not that she's been given notice many times; its that she's continued to take actions that threaten the health of the community - which have led to those notices.
- eduction 4y agoThe comment of mine you’re replying to is specifically about notice as it relates to the notion of government overreach - it is replying to a comment that is also about those things. (That’s about all I have opinions on here, so I render no judgment on your point)
- fnordpiglet 4y agoTo my understanding the current law of the land as affirmed by the supreme court many times over the last 150 years is you can not be compelled to be treated for an infectious disease but you absolutely can be isolated against your will if you are a danger to others, as well as other sanctions like fines.
- Timshel 4y agoNo article make clear why she refused I believe. I can't help to wonder if it's a modern spin of Typhoid Mary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon).
- bbatha 4y agoGerm theory was also pretty new at the time and not something most working class people would know about, nor did Mary have symptoms. Contrary to today, germ theory is taught in elementary schools and is well understood by basically everyone. And this woman was clearly experiencing symptoms bad enough to require an ER visit! Visiting the ER likely also means that most of the common religious reasons such as being a Christian Scientist are out the window. At a certain point it becomes willful negligence and not ignorance.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- NikkiA 4y agoBecause the drug the US insists upon has some nasty side effects that are potentially life ending/changing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoniazid#Side_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoniazid#Side_effects
- mock-possum 4y agothat's a reason to refuse treatment, not a reason to deliberately put the lives of others at risk.
- oliwarner 4y agoThe question isn't the immediacy, it's your right to choose. "Take these drugs, or else" is the choice being offered to her. Constitutionally speaking, one might argue she have an option to live her life unimpeded. I don't disagree with the court's sentiment, she's absolutely a public health hazard. But I also don't think people should have a right to bear arms, freely insult others beyond the point of harassment etc, etc.
- trogdor 4y ago>insult others beyond the point of harassment What do you mean by this?
- oliwarner 4y agoI mean that a lot of speech that goes to court and gets defended by the first amendment should possibly be actionable. There are plenty of extremists who walk this line but the Westboro Baptist Church are the first that come to my mind. There's also plenty of hypocrisy when applying these laws. A lot more brown people seem to get prosecuted for radicalisation than white "Christian" extremists. IMO: It's okay to hold the opinion, it's okay to air the opinion, but picketing funeral processions? You're being a dick. Straight to jail. I think that's a problem with freedoms in general is that there's no scope to measure people being a dick to people who aren't. The law should have leeway in both directions for outliers. Just my take, anyway. It probably is worse than outright freedom but it might feel fairer for a few minutes.
- oliwarner 4y ago> You're being a dick. Straight to jail. But what about protest? I don't know. I understand the need for protest, and I would defend most of it. But the last few years has also seen a lot of protests that go too far; people hiding under the skirt of protest when they're actually just there to riot, instigate violent confrontation. Is it okay to superglue yourself to a road to protest oil? Is it okay to break shit, block or delay thousands of normal people to get a message across? The law doesn't do "sometimes" very well, and people don't do "balanced and unbiased" very well. I'm not sure what's right.
- lost_tourist 4y agoShe is a walking biohazard. If you want to be in society there is a minimal level of responsiblity, otherwise go to the forest and build a lean-to and live out the rest of your tb shortened life.
- News-Dog 4y agoHenry Wadsworth Longfellow; *I shot an arrow into the air, It fell to earth, I knew not where; For, so swiftly it flew, the sight Could not follow it in its flight.* Celebratory Gunfire : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire
- woodruffw 4y agoFrom another article: the person in question might be mentally disabled or otherwise incapable of understanding their infection[1]. It's otherwise hard to imagine why someone would walk around with an active (and not latent) tuberculosis infection for over a year. Incarcerating someone is not an ideal outcome, but an understandable one in the presence of other pressures (like the absence of adequate mental health facilities). It would be interesting to see more reporting on those pressures. [1]: https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article272657405.html https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article272657405.h...
- ryandrake 4y ago> It's otherwise hard to imagine why someone would walk around with an active (and not latent) tuberculosis infection for over a year. If 2020/2021 taught us anything, it's that millions of people are totally fine with denying, ignoring and spreading a deadly, infectious disease, and actively fight/protest measures to stop it.
- irrational 4y agoI had the exact same thought. Prior to the pandemic, I would have agreed with OP. After the pandemic? Well, maybe “mentally disabled or otherwise incapable of understanding” is a good description of a huge percentage of the population.
- woodruffw 4y agoI empathize with this on a personal safety level, but all available evidence about this person indicates that they're just mentally ill. They're not part of a community of tuberculosis truthers or something like that; they're someone infected with a very deadly disease and will likely die if they aren't forcefully given treatment.
- voytec 4y agoAlso, may kill others.
- jbigelow76 4y agoGive me liberty or give me death! Why not both?
- claytongulick 4y agoLiberty carries risks, but most people understand that the promise of safety in a nanny-state is a lie. You have the same (if not more) risks but have lost your personal liberty to boot. The social contract has always been a balancing act between the most benefit for the most people, and the ability to enjoy life as you see fit. I find it disheartening how "cool" it has become in recent times to attack the fundamental concept of liberty. It's like, folks feel like it's ok to reverse hundreds of years of progress on liberalism just as long as it's their tribe that's in charge.
- 1letterunixname 4y agoOr cake.
- ranting-moth 4y agoGood.
- CallMeJim 4y agoI'm surprised no one has mentioned Typhoid Mary so far!
- kkielhofner 4y agoSame! It's a wild and almost unbelievable story[0]. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon
- thornewolf 4y agoThe previous discussion of this situation (link needed) had some discussion on typhoid Mary. That previous thread was actually where I learned about the story.
- elihu 4y agoSounds like there are some parallels. I'm not sure if it's the same in this case, but Mary Mallon was given a court order to give up her job as a cook, but that was the best paying job she could get, so lacking the financial resources necessary to survive without that job she returned to it. I think the public policy lesson there is: you can't just tell people to stop doing things they have to do in order to exist. If it's necessary in rare cases to tell people to stop working, then it's up to the state to provide them the financial resources to survive.
- bbatha 4y agoGerm theory was also pretty new at the time and not something most working class people would know about, nor did Mary have symptoms. Contrary to today, germ theory is taught in elementary schools and is well understood by basically everyone. And this woman was clearly experiencing symptoms bad enough to require an ER visit! Visiting the ER likely also means that most of the common religious reasons such as being a Christian Scientist are out the window.
- elihu 4y agoThe article mentions translators, so there's evidently some sort of language barrier, and probably a cultural one as well. Even if she did fully understand that she's supposed to socially distance and observe a lot of very strict precautions to not infect anyone, it's not clear if she had the financial means to actually follow all those rules, which likely prevented her from working.
- throwthere 4y agoHighlights an edge case of informed consent (medical consent). Basically, it's impossible to "internally give" consent when done under any sort of threat. In other words, she may "express" consent, but not "internally give consent." What does that mean? Probably, she'll get strongly supervised treatment and nothing untoward happens. But then what happens if she suffers a serious side effect of the treatment?
- derefr 4y agoThe government used to do everything it could to make executioners anonymous, so that friends/family of the aggrieved had no clear target for vengeance (whether civil or extrajudicial); and so society at large couldn’t recognize the executioner as “dishonourable” for being willing to perform such an act. This edge-case could be pretty easily worked around by providing the same level of anonymity to doctors involved in state-ordered medical treatment. Can’t sue without a defendant!
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y agoI think you are misinterpreting the parent comment. The issue is not legal protection for doctors that administer state mandated treatments. She had the option in this case to self-isolate. The issue is ethical, is it possible for a patient to give consent if it's given under threat (of incarceration or otherwise). I think medical consent as a concept has been weakened in the west this past decade, the first obvious example is Covid with people having to get vaccinated to have access to certain services and to keep their employment in some cases, the second example that struck me at the time are opt-out systems for organ donations.
- 1letterunixname 4y agoNo consent is needed if a noncompliant patient poses great harm to others. The least harm to all is to force their treatment without their informed consent. It's either that or keep paying for their total isolation until they die. Not treating a treatable fatal illness would be malpractice. If they wanted to kill themselves by some other means later, then that's a mental healthcare matter later.
- nativeit 4y ago“This just in, there has been a serious outbreak of tuberculosis in a Washington detention facility.”
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- baskethead 4y agoI was talking to a psychologist/counselor that works with one of the counties in the Bay Area. He said that top 10 most frequent people he sees costs the county well over $1 million per year, and the top person costs over $10 million. He said that about 30% of the people he works with need counseling but he also confirmed that there simply is a large percentage of people that he works with that need to be forced into treatment and he agreed with Michael Shellenberger's approach in the book "San Fransicko". He said even within the Bay Area, people bounce around between counties, and there is no system to keep track of them, and that also leads to a lot of wasted money. This is a perfect case of how sometimes people need to be forced into treatment for their own good, and for the good of others. The issue of government overreach is absurd in these extreme situations. This woman is brazenly ignoring public health, probably because of a mental health issue. There needs to be a way to declare some people as being unfit to care for themselves. I, for one, think that if you are so addicted to drugs and/or alcohol or are so mentally ill, that you drop unconscious on the sidewalk, you should be put into forced mental health care for at least 60 days or longer.
- RobotToaster 4y agoI'm convinced de-institutionalisation was just a cost cutting measure. Yes there were issues, but a lot of those were due to under-funding. Not to mention the community support that was supposed to replace institutionalisation never materialised.
- eduction 4y agoMy only opinion on all this is I don’t trust any solution that does not acknowledge and address why we ended forced mental health carceral treatment in the first place. Chesterton’s Fence. There was a “crisis” that caused that practice to end just as there is now a “crisis” bringing it back. If it’s brought back it should be done outside of this framework of panic.
- shadowgovt 4y ago> There needs to be a way to declare some people as being unfit to care for themselves. There is in the law of each state; it varies from state to state. For obvious reasons, it's a pretty high bar to clear and usually requires an advocate for commitment to be dedicated to the cause to make sure that the involuntary commitment process goes all the way through to completion.
- dathinab 4y agoTuberculosis is such a huge society (capitalism?) failure story. We had all the needed tool to eradicate it. But we didn't. Mainly because of organizational and monetary reasons. Now this illness many have treated as "conquered" is coming back with more and more antibiotics resisted strands. And this trend only gets accelerated due to many poor areas not being able to provide the needed treatment for many of the more vicious strands anymore as they don't have the kind of antibiotics necessary for it. I wonder if 50 or so years in the future we have to have tuberculosis isolation centers again where we have to place patients with it again due to some extra bad fully antibiotic resistant strands which we can't treat anymore... would be horrible.
- 1letterunixname 4y agoEvidence?
- m3kw9 4y ago“As It Should”, Harry Styles follow up hit song.
- cat_plus_plus 4y agoPerhaps unavoidable, but we shouldn't gloat about it either. In principle, people who are willing to tolerate certain kinds of risks from each other should be able to live in voluntary communities and those who unwilling should be able to stay away. With COVID millions would have taken the risks and millions of others would have gladly isolated until vaccines arrived, both groups were denied important agency to choose what they thought was the least bad option in a bad situation. Monkeypox and AIDS can be largely eradicated through serial monogamy/monoandry with testing before starting a new relationship, should we start arresting people who don't comply?
- hyperpape 4y agoYour analogy is badly misguided. Having non-monogamous sex has a risk of getting/spreading HIV. Being around people has a risk of getting/spreading tuberculosis. Those are analogous. The direct analogy in this case is criminal non-disclosure of HIV positivity to sexual partners. While you will find some disagreement about second order effects of laws against it, and it raises serious questions, there have been prosecutions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV.
- cat_plus_plus 4y agoSure, and we shouldn't gloat about either case. Ideally should be vaccines and treatments for HIV, so that someone who had too much to drink and had sex without discussing their medical history could be treated like a jerk rather than a full criminal. It could be that we can think of no other way to safeguard ourselves, but we should keep thinking how we can respect everyone preferences. Maybe HIV positive bars where everyone understands issues from the start.