Being Quarantined is No Fun

31 year old attorney and tuberculosis patient Andrew Speaker is now in Denver at National Jewish Hospital. His life for the forseeable future won't be pleasant.

He'll likely spend several weeks in a drab hospital room with a high-tech vent and an ultraviolet light that kills bacteria as it is sucked out of the room. His only view of the outdoors will be the wall of a building, a patch of grass, and some patio tables and chairs on the ground below. He will be allowed to have visitors, but they must wear face masks, doctors said.

....Normally, patients with similar diagnoses — Speaker is believed to have a low level of TB in his system — would be allowed to leave the room while in the hospital. But doctors plan to keep him in the room for the immediate future until they can preform more tests, officials said.

Sounds like jail.

< Labels | More On Constitutional Moments >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    He has resistant TB (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Jen M on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:13:07 PM EST
    and doesn't care who he infects. He went on several international flights, endangering other passengers. Not to mention endangering people in the countries he visited.

    Severe quarantines are usually reserved for those people who ignore precautions that will protect those around him. It doesn't happen often.

    Imagine someone spreading a more easily infectious disease everywhere s/he went. KNOWING they have the disease.  

    Deliberately endangering other people's lives is not a right.

    I agree (none / 0) (#9)
    by nolo on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:22:24 PM EST
    I can't believe this guy did what he did.  This is just more proof that Americans are spoiled and don't  understand things like the risk of serious communicable diseases.  I say send him to a camp with the folks who don't understand why they need vaccinations, and see how it works out for them.

    Send him to a camp.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:34:10 PM EST
    thats nice.

    No wonder people don't always turn themselves in for the crime of carrying a disease.


    carrying a disease (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jen M on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:56:40 PM EST
    isnt a crime

    Handing it out like candy on the other hand...

    The overwhelming majority of people who contract reportable diseases comply with precautionary measures.

    Otherwise this issue would be discussed every day.


    To be fair... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 09:21:53 AM EST
    it appears nobody caught anything from this guy.

    Don't we need a victim before we charge this guy with reckless endangerment or whatever and lock him up?

    I'm not crazy about defending this clown since he was so irresponsible, but I would happily defend somebody else with this type of TB going off to live out his days in isolation in the woods or a desert island.  

    The pro-quarantine crowd's beef is with mother nature, not the TB holder.  Mother nature decided to make him immune and most of the rest of us susceptible.  Thats not the TB holder's fault.  I can live with the threat of disease, I mean we got no choice...I can't sit easy with the state having the right to lock down sick people with armed guards.


    "Handing it out like candy .." (none / 0) (#22)
    by dutchfox on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 09:32:22 AM EST
    Well, get a load of this news! -

    Radio Netherlands Worldwide - Unprotected sex at any price?

    Three seropositive gay men suspected of intentionally infecting people with HIV at sex parties in the Dutch town of Groningen will face charges of rape and grievous bodily harm with intent. They drugged at least five guests and injected them with their HIV-infected blood.

    The men reportedly told police that it turned them on, and that the more HIV-infected people there were, the better their chances of unprotected sex. According to the Groningen Chief of Police they considered unprotected relations to be 'pure'. Two of those arrested, a couple aged 48 and 33 have confessed. A fourth man who allegedly supplied the three suspects with several litres of the date-rape drug GHB and Ecstasy tablets was also arrested.

    Conditional Intent
    Even though infection with HIV can be fatal if it develops into AIDS, the Public Prosecutors' Office will not be able to charge the suspects with attempted murder, or even manslaughter. In the past few years, the authorities have made several attempts to win convictions on these charges, for instance in the case of an HIV-positive man who failed to warn his sex partners about his condition. However, the Dutch Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there was insufficient evidence of either murder or manslaughter in these cases.[...]

    [T]he Dutch HIV Association, a government sponsored and subsided volunteer organisation created to promote safe sex, is in crisis because an internal working group is claiming the right to unsafe sex for HIV-infected people. The group, which calls itself Poz' and Proud, reportedly also wants to organise unsafe sex parties.

    Poz' and Proud says those who do not wish to become infected should take responsibility for their own actions. The group argues that the Dutch HIV Association has no right to pronounce moral judgment on those who transmit the HIV virus through unsafe sex.

    Expands the meaning of consensual sex, too.


    I was speaking hyperbolically (none / 0) (#23)
    by nolo on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 09:47:30 AM EST
    But I still feel strongly about my point. My generation of Americans, and yours as well (not to mention the generation this 31 year old educated man was born in), didn't have to live with the threat of deadly, debilitating infectious diseases.  The old days, though, were pretty scary. Talk to older people and they can tell you stories.  Look around as well.  I know people who survived polio, for instance, and people who lost family members to the disease as well.

    The relative freedom from the risk of deadly infectious diseases that we enjoy in this country is a huge achievement.  It's also a fragile achievement that people have come to take for granted.  Otherwise, you wouldn't have perfectly intelligent, well-educated people refusing to vaccinate their children, or perfectly intelligent, well-educated young attorneys deciding that a honeymoon trip to Europe (in which he would expose not just random strangers, but his own wife as well) couldn't wait until after he had received treatment for tuberculosis.


    Just for the record (none / 0) (#24)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 09:59:18 AM EST
    I am a perfectly well-educated rational individual who has chosen not to vaccinate my children.

    While we have made advancements in some areas of medical science, others we are falling behind in. There are vaccinations for many diseases that only pose minimal risk such as flu, chicken pox, mumps, etc. Children are very susceptible to toxins in their bodies and vaccines contain many toxins that are linked to medical conditions on the rise such as learning and emotional behavior disabilities, autism, aspergers Syndrome, etc. I can certainly understand the argument that some vaccines are in the public interest, such as Polio. However, we have gone way beyond this and are vaccinating every disease, many of which only cause minor discomfort to the majority of individuals and we also don't understand how this may affect our overall immune system for children who are vaccinated against relatively minor diseases that most of us lived through just fine. If their immunde systems become compromised or not, we do not know.

    We do know there are toxins in vaccines and many of these vaccines are produced by the pharmacuetical companies who see compulsory public vaccination as a means for attaining high profits.

    again, just for the record.


    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#26)
    by nolo on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 10:17:15 AM EST
    but that's all bunk.  The antivaccine movement's got about as much real science behind it as the global warming contrarians do.  And I say that as a plaintiff's personal injury attorney who'd be more than happy to get on the thimerosal litigation bandwagon if there was something behind it besides hooey.

    Just for the record.  But carry on.


    Bunk? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 10:30:12 AM EST
    Obviously, a personal injury client has no chance against the peer reviewed science put out by pharmaceuticals.

    Explain the rise in Autism, though. How about Alzehiemers, Parkinson's?

    Listen, I don't know what causes what, but I do know bunk. Bunk is a personal injury attorney deciding people who question the science of thimerosal are wrong based on their singular ability to put forth a successful litigation suit. That is the definition of Bunk.

    As someone who wants something done about the potential of global climate change and favors a reduction in the use of fossil fuels, I have no problem with Global climate change contrarians. We should always be skeptical of science guiding any public policy. Science is not fool-proof and their are many reasons to be skeptical of a lot of published science from peer-reviewed sources. Especially, when many reports seemingly contradict each other and what we know based on the science today is often discovered to be wrong based on the science tomorrow.

    Hooey is a description of your opinion Mr personal injury attorney. Sheesus. How do I know that you have only the experience of auto accidents behind you. Give me a freaken break.


    Easy, there, pardner (none / 0) (#31)
    by nolo on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 10:52:07 AM EST
    I see no reason to be abusive. I mentioned my profession only in order to show that if I were to have any bias at all on this issue, it would be in favor of your position, not against it.

    If it turns out that the facts are on your side and I (along with the majority of the scientific and medical community) am wrong, then good for you.  But if your main argument against the majority consensus and in favor of the minority position is that the people in the majority are biased and have a vested interest in the status quo, that's not exactly a scientific argument.  It's more like a conspiracy theory.

    Just saying.  Oh, and also, when looking over scientific and medical studies, it's a good thing to keep in mind that correlation is not the same thing as causation.  The studies upon which most antivaccination arguments have been based are epidemiological studies that rely solely on potential correlations in certain populations, which are then used to support an inference of causation.  None that I am aware of have demonstrated actual causation or expounded on the nature of the causal mechanism that is supposed to exist between vaccination (whether we're talking about thimerosal, mercury, MMR vaccines, what have you) and the condition it is supposed to have caused.  It's worth thinking about.  In the meantime, have a good day.


    The point is (none / 0) (#34)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 11:06:03 AM EST
    We don't know. Science does not know. I am well aware of the difference between correlation and causation. I have made that point many times here at TL in other contexts.

    My point is that we all have to make a decision and we take in a lot of factors when making those decisions. You can listen to the medical community and your doctor who tells you to use all available vaccinations for your child. But, reason and common sense based on science should tell you that there are risks for taking this advice and the benefits might be minimal - not only for your child personally, but also for the public as a whole. Chicken Pox, influenza, Mumps, Measels, can all be fatal, but in the majority of cases they only cause minor discomfort and they help build the immune system naturally without having to worry about potentail toxins. This skepticism is not bunk or hooey. It is perfectly reasonable, and in my opinion, choosing to pass on the majority of vaccines that your pediatrician recommends for your child is the right decision based on correlations and risk and the potential costs and benefits.

    My doctor will disagree, but only a cursory look at the medical profession should provide evidence that many, if not most doctors, are not that well-informed and rely almost exclusively on literature provided by the pharmaceuticals who provide the treatments for the diseases. Any proactive patient should be skeptical of what their doctor tells them. This does not mean they should ignore everything they tell them, but rather look for other sources of information as well.


    Your point is... (none / 0) (#36)
    by desertswine on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 11:18:28 AM EST
    BS (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 12:48:42 PM EST
    The authors of the article you link to are hardly impartial. The Dr. Lawyer father and son team have a big financial stake in their claims.

    Mark Geier and David Geier have filed two U.S. patent applications on the use of the drug Lupron in combination with chelation therapy as a treatment protocol for autism based on the hypothesis that "testosterone mercury" along with low levels of glutathione blocks the conversion of DHEA to DHEA-S and therefore raises androgens which in turn further lower glutathione levels. The thought is that this ultimately provides a connection between autism, mercury exposure, and hyperandrogenicity, specifically precocious puberty.

    These guys are scum, if you ask me. Chelation therapy is not only dangerous but very expensive and has zero effect on autism.

    All the unbiased studies I have read about autism point to a genetic relationship.

    Hey, no doubt that mercury is bad, but it is silly to think that it causes autism.



    Oh... (none / 0) (#39)
    by desertswine on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 02:56:53 PM EST
    I didn't know that. Thanks.

    Autism (none / 0) (#40)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 03:03:00 PM EST
    is in all likelihood caused by a a number of contributing factors of which both mercury and genetics likely play a part.

    I admire your skepticism, squeaky, but it should be tempered with your own uncertainty. TO say "Zero effect," and that the mercury autism link is "silly' demonstrates an intolerance for opposing views that is not backed up with evidence.

    We just don't know about a lot of things we pretend we are certain on. We do the best we can with the knowledge we have. None of us can be certain of anything but that nothing is certain.


    the problem is (none / 0) (#41)
    by nolo on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 03:57:09 PM EST
    that there is absolutely no credible evidence whatsoever of a link between thimerosal (which is at this point nearly completely absent from vaccines that are recommended for children age 6 and younger anyway) and autism.  As you say, nothing's certain, but that doesn't make Squeaky's statement silly-- not by a long shot.

    If, based on your knowledge of the established and known risks accompanying certain vaccinations and your awareness of risk factors for infection in your community you decide to forego certain vaccinations, I may disagree with your risk-benefit analysis, but I wouldn't necessarily call your reasoning silly.  If, on the other hand, you forego vaccinations because you think they're going to cause autism, silly is the first word that's going to come to my mind.

    And believe me, I'm both (a) pretty tolerant and (b) used to questioning the pronouncements, knowledge and reasoning of medical professionals.  It's what I do for a living.


    I didn't call Squeaky silly (none / 0) (#42)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 03:59:34 PM EST
    or what she said silly.

    Read it again Nolo


    Credible evidence (none / 0) (#43)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 04:18:14 PM EST
    I am not sure what this means, but many people like to throw out the term. I know that there is a legal definition as decided by the courts, but it still is a very fuzzy term.

    I like to think about risk and cost and benefits as I said. I don't see much rick in many of the things we vaccinate against or that the medical professin recommends we vaccinate against our children.

    I'll give you another example. My son went to the Dentist the other day. He's five. First time. The dental hygienist says to me, "the Dentist says we are going to be putting the sealant on his teeth." I said, "Wait a minute, what the heck is this sealant and what is it made of." "Oh, it is perfectly safe and if he doesn't get it, he will certainly have cavities in his molars. It is standard and recommended procedure by the American Dental Association. He will need to apply it every few years. We will check on the Sealants status on every checkup." I said, "Well, we won't be getting the sealant." She said, "but the Dentist decided that he needs it." I said, "I decide what he needs and he doesn't need the sealant."

    What is the risk? well a sealant is made of some foreign substance. What ever it is it breaks down over time inside the mouth. Therefore it is ingested by the body. I have no idea what this is made of, but there is a chance that something in the sealant is not recommended to be ingested by the scientific community. However, the ADA has decided it is safe.

    What is the benefit? a reduced risk of cavities. I don't want my son to have cavities and we give him a very healthy diet that is very low on simple sugars. He eats lots of nutritious vegetables and drinks unpasteurized and non-homogenized milk. I am hoping that from a good diet and by instilling  a habit of taking care of his teeth, his risk for developing cavaties will be greatly reduced.

    If I don't think there is a substantial benefit from introducing a foreign and man-made substance into my or my children's bodies, then I am not going to accept a risk that the foreign and unnatural substance might contribute to a disease, cancer or some other undesirable outcome in terms of my family's health - even if the risk is considered small or the potential negative effects are deemed to be not supported by credible evidence.


    Autism Spectrum (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 05:45:25 PM EST
    Does not cause neurological damage. Yes there may be people on the spectrum with neurological damage for unrelated reasons. The notion that an external substance causes it is eclipsed by the large amount of research pointing to genetics as the cause. Some call it neurodiversity, as those on the spectrum are not abnormal per se, but part of the bigger picture and quite beneficial to society.

    As far as an epidemic goes, that is a joke. We are able to diagnose more young children these days who would have been called retarded or eccentric depending on where they fit along the autistic spectrum pre 1990's.

    The high incidence of children on the autism spectrum in silicon valley has only to do with environmental causes in that silicon valley is wonderful breeding ground for geeks, many of whom are on the autistic spectrum. Because of their limited social skills they  would be less successful in mating outside of such a concentrated environment of like minded peers.  At best is is an epidemic of geeks getting lucky.


    Also, (none / 0) (#27)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 10:19:54 AM EST
    What I find peculiar, is that perfectly intelligent, well-educated people accept statements from the medical community, scientific community, the media, pharmaceutical companies and the government without the slightest bit of skepticism. Well, actually, I blame this on our education system.

    yeah (none / 0) (#29)
    by nolo on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 10:30:12 AM EST
    I don't know why perfectly intelligent, well-educated people would listen to the medical community or the scientific community on issues relating to medicine or science.  Must be the fault of the education system that I do such things.  If I'd been properly educated, I guess I'd be talking to my auto mechanic, or Deepak Chopra, or my buddy who never finished college who's all into reiki and mandala therapy.

    All science progress (none / 0) (#30)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 10:37:21 AM EST
    is based on skepticism. We have to question, not accept the status quo hook lin and sinker. Especially when science goes against reason and common sense. Thimeserol is a form of mercury. Mercury is toxic. We are putting this into the bodies of children. The medical community says this is safe. The medical community is informed by the science funded by pharmaceutical companies. Maybe a litigation attorney cannot put these thoughts together, but I guarantee you my auto mechanic can.

    good (none / 0) (#33)
    by nolo on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 10:54:47 AM EST
    then maybe your auto mechanic should be handling your children's pediatric care as well.

    You don't get it. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 11:08:49 AM EST
    I, along with my wife, handle my children's medical care. My auto mechanic is perfectly capable of handling his children's care. The doctor/patient relationship is a partnership.

    Education and Science (none / 0) (#38)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 12:56:45 PM EST
    A proper education would teach everyone how to be scientists and analyze information and data, form hypotheses, test hypotheses, conduct experiments, and reach conclusions. The scientific method is available to everyone and can be used to reach conclusions in many different situations.

    What our education teaches us that science is exclusive and done by a small contingent of experts. We are educated to rely on the expertise of the high priests of science and not to trust our individual capacities for reason and common sense, nor our own abilities to do our own scientific experiments. This is not much different than how the church educated the masses in the middle ages where individuals were instructed to rely upon the expertise of the high priests in the church. The only difference is that the experts now are in the halls of science. This may be an advancement or an improvement (or it may not be)over the middle ages, but it does not excuse the experts from being questioned by the layperson, simply on the basis that they are not "educated" enough or "knowledgeable" enough to form an informed opinion that challenges the experts in science.

    Education that teaches individual to "trust" experts and not to question them is a form of brainwashing that does not instill self-reliance in the individual, which a real education would.


    It does sound like jail. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by RSA on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:47:02 PM EST
    And should it be?  This guy deliberately put perhaps hundreds of people at risk of being infected with a serious communicable disease.  For an inflammatory analogy, consider someone who shoots a gun randomly in some public area.  The chances of his hitting someone may be miniscule, but still we take into account the possibility of a bad outcome.

    Its a toughie.... (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:03:50 PM EST
    but I gotta say I think he's got the inalienable right to walk out that hospital door if he so chooses.

    The rest of us do not have an inalienable right to be free of disease, thats just part of being alive.  We can only hope those who have such a disease would voluntarily isolate themselves. I know I would, but I might choose a tent in the middle of nowhere instead of a hospital with armed guards at the door.

    Think Again (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:15:58 PM EST
    Forty-two states permit commitment to treatment facilities. Thirty-six states require a court order to commit someone to a facility. Several do not require a court order or a hearing. Generally court orders will be initiated by a petition from public health authorities requesting a hearing. Written notice to the person concerned is usually required, but the hearing may be held with or without the patient. Only thirteen states explicitly grant the right to be represented by counsel in any part of the proceedings. Of these, eleven will provide counsel to indigent individuals.

    Release is accomplished when a determination is made that the person is no longer a threat to the public health, or no longer infectious. Some statutes specify criteria for release which may be vague ("no longer a danger to the public health") or specific (evidence in sputum tests that the person is no longer actively contagious). Ten states have no statutory time limits on the length of time a patient may be held without discharge or recommitment. In many states the only explicit due process protection afforded persons who are quarantined is the opportunity to petition the court for release.



    kdog (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:56:10 PM EST
    Baloney Kdog. You can take this "everyone has rights but no responsibilties" just so far.

    We have the right to expect people who know that have a deadly disease to not do things that place us at risk.


    I agree.... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:17:14 PM EST
    this guy seems like a rather selfish dolt, and what he did was irresponsible.

    But I still think if I had an infectious disease I should have the right to go live alone in the woods, instead of in a hospital room cell.


    Kdog (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:28:43 PM EST
    Problem is, he didn't do that.

    He got on a airplane that recirculates the air every 30 seconds.... knowing he had a disease that is commonunicated by.....AIR.


    Should we wait and see if he... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:41:36 PM EST
    infected anybody first before we sentence him to life?  Or put him in a camp, or shoot him in the back if he tries to escape, as others have suggested.

    He's not going into permanent detention (none / 0) (#21)
    by nolo on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 09:23:28 AM EST
    or anything like it.  In fact, he's going to receive the finest medical treatment available, at one of the finest facilities in the world, and as long as he doesn't decide to hop on any more transatlantic flights while he's still infectious for an antibiotic-resistant disease that kills 70 percent of the people who contract it, he'll be free to move about.

    I'm sure he hopes so.... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 10:53:03 AM EST
    That he will eventually be free to move about  that is.  I'd have my doubts when armed guards are posted outside the door.

    He's "lucky" he's not in Arizona.... (none / 0) (#2)
    by jerry on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:07:50 PM EST
    Wendy Kaminer has a similar post. (Though her site uses icky Microsoft as opposed to cool Linux.  Oh well....)

    An example of egregiously bad behavior on the part of government is what Sheriff Joe Arpaio has done in Maricopa County jailing a man for his TB and unnecessarily keeping him with the same lack of access to outsiders and comforts as any felon in Arpaio's Pink Pantied Tent City.

    The man in this case also knew of his disease and had been told how to treat it and what to do, and he was violating much of that. While forcibly quarantining him may have been a reasonable step, locking him down and removing access to TV, the Internet, and everything else is beyond the pale.


    After this made the news, Arpaio decided it would be wise to give the man back the TV....

    Quarantined (none / 0) (#7)
    by TomK on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:58:20 PM EST
    I work in health care.

    Here is how I feel about quarantines.

    We should treat people really good while they are quarantined.  We should let them have whatever entertainments they want (computer games, reading, tvs current movies, etc.)

    But, if someone breaks their quarantine, they should be shot immediately, before they can spread it to anyone.  A serious outbreak of a quarantined deasise would kill thousands of people.  if you think people should be in jail for spreading AIDS without informing their partners, then this is sort of thing is like that times several thousand, at least.  

    That may sound harsh.  But no one should take these deasises lightly at all.

    We don't agree (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:32:54 PM EST
    with advocating violence at this site. Please refrain from making such suggestions in the future.

    "No violence" (none / 0) (#15)
    by diogenes on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:53:33 PM EST
    OK-if they break the comfy quarantine then send them to Sheriff Joe Arpaio's pink-pantied tent city.

    Check out AP article. He is a plaintiff's (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2007 at 11:24:07 PM EST
    trail lawyer and his brand new father-in-law works for the CDC on TB research.  

    Quarantine (none / 0) (#17)
    by jarober on Thu May 31, 2007 at 11:32:09 PM EST
    TL might want to read this book.  

    The city of Philadelphia decided not to aggressively quarantine (flu epidemic of 1918) when they should have - and they suffered thousands more casualties than cities that took the threat of influenza seriously.  

    Yes, it sounds like jail, and there's a reason for that - through no fault of his own, he's a threat to public health.  He exacerbated that by exposing countless others to himself via air travel.  He deserves no sympathy whatsoever.  

    Self defense (none / 0) (#18)
    by ltgesq on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 12:49:48 AM EST
    To be clear,I am not advocating violence.  If someone was approaching you with a weapon that could very well cause death or permanent disability, you would be entitled in many states to take affirmative steps to protect yourself.

    This man should be made as comfortable as possible, but he clearly forfeited the right to wander around in close contact with the public.  If he wore a sign around him saying " i have resistant TB", I might feel differently.  There are thousands of immune compromized people out there that could die as a result of the exposure to this selfish jerk.  Tell me how that would not be reckless homocide?  As it is, if the state has a public health law allowing it, then this is the case to use it.

    Spend some time reading about the Influenza of 1918, then let me know what you think.  What if Typhoid Mary was quaranteened?

    People call off weddings for less than TB.

    True or False? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dulcinea on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 07:32:25 AM EST
    Somehow the story thus far doesn't ring true.  Sad, but not true.  For one thing, Speaker's father-in-law's account doesn't pass the smell test.

    ...doesn't pass the smell test... (none / 0) (#25)
    by desertswine on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 10:12:27 AM EST
    I agree with that. Unless it's a billion to one coincidence.

    CNN pushing limits on on civil rights (none / 0) (#45)
    by Aaron on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 07:50:51 PM EST
    CNN just had a segment, with a bunch of nonmedical experts, which basically blamed our civil rights for this overblown incident.  Whenever something like this happens, they start talking about limiting people civil rights, that kind of disgusting fear response is what we've deteriorated to in this country.

    After reading some of the comments.... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 08:21:51 AM EST
    on this thread, I'd be scared to cough in front of somebody, lest they try to detain me for mandatory TB testing.

    Freedom is too scary for some people I guess...