So apparently some health care experts believe that the disregard for their civil liberties overrides concern for ensuring Ebola does not spread to the general population. Normally, I'd be all in for the protection of civil liberties. I believe in minimalizing government intrusion into as many areas of our lives as possible and in regulation as a principle only where it deals with our rights of property and due process as defined in the U,S, Constitution. I will remind my readers right at the start that I consider the greatest property right of any human as the right to life (implying some regulation applies to how life may be lived).
In an article (read it here) Dr. Anthony Fauci argues that we may unnecessarily deter workers with great medical skill from traveling to the danger zone to work because they will be quarantined upon return. Dr. Fauci has a point, but if your personal sacrifice in the name of aultruistic service to mankind means you can not plan on an extra 21 days upon your return during which you are monitored to ensure you are not incubating the germ and becoming an active case of Ebola, then you are not that bright to begin with and probably should not be a doctor or nurse responsible for medical practice. And hey, by the way I thank you for going out and making this sacrifice on the behalf of humanity--I really do.
I believe that human security is very important and that the security of life can be regulated, including the requirement of treatment for diseases that can be transmitted between humans. A most effective means of treating communicable diseases with less than stellar medicinal treatment options is still the quarantine of the effected/potentially effected population. For my two cents, states need to stick to their positions if they choose a regulatory approach to dealing with the potential of Ebola spreading in the population, until proven vaccines are readily available in the health care marketplace in massive quantity. And yes, I am sorry that quarantine is not fun Kacy Hickox, and I was aghast to know that the facility you are in does not even include a shower facility. However, the rights of people to have the right of life ensured outweigh your individual right to move around freely when returning from an Ebola hotspot at this time.
In an article (read it here) Dr. Anthony Fauci argues that we may unnecessarily deter workers with great medical skill from traveling to the danger zone to work because they will be quarantined upon return. Dr. Fauci has a point, but if your personal sacrifice in the name of aultruistic service to mankind means you can not plan on an extra 21 days upon your return during which you are monitored to ensure you are not incubating the germ and becoming an active case of Ebola, then you are not that bright to begin with and probably should not be a doctor or nurse responsible for medical practice. And hey, by the way I thank you for going out and making this sacrifice on the behalf of humanity--I really do.
I believe that human security is very important and that the security of life can be regulated, including the requirement of treatment for diseases that can be transmitted between humans. A most effective means of treating communicable diseases with less than stellar medicinal treatment options is still the quarantine of the effected/potentially effected population. For my two cents, states need to stick to their positions if they choose a regulatory approach to dealing with the potential of Ebola spreading in the population, until proven vaccines are readily available in the health care marketplace in massive quantity. And yes, I am sorry that quarantine is not fun Kacy Hickox, and I was aghast to know that the facility you are in does not even include a shower facility. However, the rights of people to have the right of life ensured outweigh your individual right to move around freely when returning from an Ebola hotspot at this time.
No comments:
Post a Comment