4 ms·

The 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’

The 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 ago
One 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 ago
  For someone who disagrees or objects to the exercise of these powers, the amount of notice given before forcing treatment is not relevant.
wslack 4y ago
It'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 ago
  The 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 ago
To 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.
- eduction 4y ago
  This doesn’t relate to what I said. The point is that for those who believe this is government overreach saying “she had plenty of notice” is a non sequitur. If you believe something is a right, giving more notice before abrogating it does not factor into whether it is a rights violation. Everything I’ve said here, by the way, is true regardless of your position on the court’s action (on which I’ve stated no position). If people believe (six people here and counting, and I’m not saying you’re one of them) that they need to downvote a basic factual observation because it vaguely seems to contradict their opinions, maybe they should examine why they so lack confidence in their opinions.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    No. She went to jail for violating a judge's orders to get treated or isolate. You shouldn't go to jail for violating a judge's orders?
    - eduction 4y ago
      [flagged]
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    It does actually. Under the framework of the government in the US the Supreme Court decides what’s over reach, not your internal feelings. One could argue the existence of a government at all is over reach and they’re in many ways right. But they’re also irrelevant opinions because they have no authority. Ultimately those who hold the guns and prisons decide the scope of their power and we have collectively agreed that scope is the interpretation of the supreme court and the constitutional laws passed by the legislature. So, until you can provide something that is the opinion of the Supreme Court, you’re just factually wrong. Your opinion of right and wrong, while you’re entitled to it, is completely irrelevant. The notice is relevant because it’s indicative of due process and an attempt to respect her individual rights and balance it with the public good, which she has repeatedly ignored and results in the escalation to the rightful isolation.
Waterluvian 4y ago
Throwing someone immediately into a sanitarium for having tuberculosis vs. throwing them in jail after 17 court visits because they wouldn’t stay away from other people is a massive difference. Ignoring all details and focusing on just the end result as if that’s all that matters leads to foolish ignorance. Furthermore, they didn’t order her to get medical treatment. They ordered her to stay away from potential victims if she didn’t get treated.
- eduction 4y ago
  > Throwing someone immediately into a sanitarium for having tuberculosis vs. throwing them in jail after 17 court visits because they wouldn’t stay away from other people is a massive difference. A “massive difference” in many contexts but not for those who oppose mandatory medical treatment. Who else would possibly argue that this is government overreach than people with that belief?
  - Waterluvian 4y ago
    This isn’t about mandatory medical treatment because the medical treatment in this case isn’t mandatory. I would absolutely be against mandatory medical treatment. But that’s not the truth here. It’s the same old chestnut: people who wrongly think their freedoms are more important than everyone else’s freedoms. They are upset at the idea of being confined to their home when they have tuberculosis or covid or whatever. They don’t value the lives of the rest of their community and so they see themselves as victims.
    - eduction 4y ago
      The article is clear that this is about mandatory treatment: “Sorenson ordered a civil warrant for her arrest, to be enforced on or after March 3, and again ordered her to jail to undergo involuntary testing and treatment until health officials deem it safe to release her.”
      - Waterluvian 4y ago
lolinder 4y ago
I don't think OP was trying to preempt concern that it's government overreach to order her to seek treatment or self-isolate: very few people would seriously argue that the government can't require someone with an active case of tuberculosis to stay out of the supermarket. Jailing her is what could be interpreted by a reasonable person as overreach, and for that concern the amount of notice she was given is absolutely relevant.
- eduction 4y ago
  > very few people would seriously argue that the government can't require someone with an active case of tuberculosis to stay out of the supermarket. The linked article seemed to me to clearly state if she goes to jail it’s to isolate and definitely also to get treated (“ordered her to jail to undergo involuntary testing and treatment until health officials deem it safe to release her”). Hence my focus on people who are against forced treatment - I don’t think notice and warning ameliorates their concerns at all.
slowmovintarget 4y ago
One of the jobs of government is, in fact, to protect innocent people from the bad behavior of others. The government shouldn't force her to get treated, but the government can protect others from exposure to potentially lethal and costly disease because of her violation of public health directives. This is not overreach, it's the exact right touch to restrict harm to the other individuals in the community.
- eduction 4y ago
  I did not say it’s overreach. I said it’s irrelevant how much notice she’s been given if you believe it’s overreach.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago

One 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 ago
For someone who disagrees or objects to the exercise of these powers, the amount of notice given before forcing treatment is not relevant.

wslack 4y ago

It'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 ago
The 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 ago

To 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.

eduction 4y ago
This doesn’t relate to what I said. The point is that for those who believe this is government overreach saying “she had plenty of notice” is a non sequitur. If you believe something is a right, giving more notice before abrogating it does not factor into whether it is a rights violation. Everything I’ve said here, by the way, is true regardless of your position on the court’s action (on which I’ve stated no position). If people believe (six people here and counting, and I’m not saying you’re one of them) that they need to downvote a basic factual observation because it vaguely seems to contradict their opinions, maybe they should examine why they so lack confidence in their opinions.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  No. She went to jail for violating a judge's orders to get treated or isolate. You shouldn't go to jail for violating a judge's orders?
  - eduction 4y ago
    [flagged]
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  It does actually. Under the framework of the government in the US the Supreme Court decides what’s over reach, not your internal feelings. One could argue the existence of a government at all is over reach and they’re in many ways right. But they’re also irrelevant opinions because they have no authority. Ultimately those who hold the guns and prisons decide the scope of their power and we have collectively agreed that scope is the interpretation of the supreme court and the constitutional laws passed by the legislature. So, until you can provide something that is the opinion of the Supreme Court, you’re just factually wrong. Your opinion of right and wrong, while you’re entitled to it, is completely irrelevant. The notice is relevant because it’s indicative of due process and an attempt to respect her individual rights and balance it with the public good, which she has repeatedly ignored and results in the escalation to the rightful isolation.

Waterluvian 4y ago

Throwing someone immediately into a sanitarium for having tuberculosis vs. throwing them in jail after 17 court visits because they wouldn’t stay away from other people is a massive difference. Ignoring all details and focusing on just the end result as if that’s all that matters leads to foolish ignorance. Furthermore, they didn’t order her to get medical treatment. They ordered her to stay away from potential victims if she didn’t get treated.

eduction 4y ago
> Throwing someone immediately into a sanitarium for having tuberculosis vs. throwing them in jail after 17 court visits because they wouldn’t stay away from other people is a massive difference. A “massive difference” in many contexts but not for those who oppose mandatory medical treatment. Who else would possibly argue that this is government overreach than people with that belief?
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  This isn’t about mandatory medical treatment because the medical treatment in this case isn’t mandatory. I would absolutely be against mandatory medical treatment. But that’s not the truth here. It’s the same old chestnut: people who wrongly think their freedoms are more important than everyone else’s freedoms. They are upset at the idea of being confined to their home when they have tuberculosis or covid or whatever. They don’t value the lives of the rest of their community and so they see themselves as victims.
  - eduction 4y ago
    The article is clear that this is about mandatory treatment: “Sorenson ordered a civil warrant for her arrest, to be enforced on or after March 3, and again ordered her to jail to undergo involuntary testing and treatment until health officials deem it safe to release her.”
    - Waterluvian 4y ago

lolinder 4y ago

I don't think OP was trying to preempt concern that it's government overreach to order her to seek treatment or self-isolate: very few people would seriously argue that the government can't require someone with an active case of tuberculosis to stay out of the supermarket. Jailing her is what could be interpreted by a reasonable person as overreach, and for that concern the amount of notice she was given is absolutely relevant.

eduction 4y ago
> very few people would seriously argue that the government can't require someone with an active case of tuberculosis to stay out of the supermarket. The linked article seemed to me to clearly state if she goes to jail it’s to isolate and definitely also to get treated (“ordered her to jail to undergo involuntary testing and treatment until health officials deem it safe to release her”). Hence my focus on people who are against forced treatment - I don’t think notice and warning ameliorates their concerns at all.

slowmovintarget 4y ago

One of the jobs of government is, in fact, to protect innocent people from the bad behavior of others. The government shouldn't force her to get treated, but the government can protect others from exposure to potentially lethal and costly disease because of her violation of public health directives. This is not overreach, it's the exact right touch to restrict harm to the other individuals in the community.

eduction 4y ago
I did not say it’s overreach. I said it’s irrelevant how much notice she’s been given if you believe it’s overreach.