In this blog post, I will be summarizing a court case regarding public health and its complications and addressing some public health legal issues.
The specific court case in the article regarded whether or not a woman called Miss Mary Kink, who had gotten anesthetic leprosy, should be sent to the city pesthouse. Miss Kink got affected by this contagious disease while working on missionary efforts in Brazil but she had developed anesthetic kind of leprosy, which is not dangerous to the community. Furthermore, she is an elderly woman who has lived and been part of the community of Aiken for a long time and has not spread this disease to anyone else. The city board of health stated that Miss Kink be placed in the city pesthouse or she move out of the city. Miss Kink and her doctor complained and stated their reasons for complaint to the city court judge, Judge Aldrich. Miss Kink is a woman of culture and comfort, so moving her to the city pesthouse would make living very difficult for her. Also, the city pesthouse was usually a place to keep African Americans who had developed smallpox. Furthermore, the city pesthouse was located very close to a city waste dumping site where waste was incinerated and the foul odors were present in the pesthouse. After reviewing and prolonging the case for months, the court ruled that Miss Kink could stay in the city and does not have to be sent to the city pesthouse or move out of the city.
The difference between quarantine and isolation is quite clear. A person is sent to isolation when he or she is known to become ill from a contagious disease. The person is isolated from the general population and can make no contact with other people to prevent people from catching the contagious disease. A person is quarantined when he or she is only known to be exposed to a contagious disease. It is unknown whether the person has actually developed the contagious disease. The person is told to remain in specific locations (such as his or her house) to prevent the person from spreading the disease to others. In most cases, state and local public health authorities decide whether or not a person should be quarantined. Their power comes from the US Constitution. According to the article, the principles of constitutional law governing health regulations provides the legislation of the rights of the individual vs. the rights of the community. In specific cases, it is up to the courts to interpret this law and decide how to balance these rights. Personally, I believe that it is more appropriate to err on the side of protecting the rights of the community because the ultimate goal is to protect as many people as possible. However, there has to be an empirical statistical analysis of each option and decide whether quarantining the individual will actually provide better prevention to those who are not yet affected by the disease.
-YP
Well, I agree that we ideally need to make sure that a disease is really infectious and dangerous enough to be a threat to the public before circumscribing the rights of people, but statistical analysis of options is very often not available so many times it just comes down to a judgement call. But you're right, we always need to strike a balance between the good of the people and the rights of the individual. Where we draw that line is the tricky part.
ReplyDelete