• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Common sense or human rights violation?

Sar

kickbox
I was reading New Scientist today & came across an article I thought might be of interest:

THE UK should change its laws in line with Europe and the rest of the world to give doctors powers to treat people who have a contagious disease and yet refuse treatment, says Philip Monk, a communicable disease specialist in Leicestershire.

The issue flared up this week after Monk revealed that a patient with tuberculosis had infected a dozen other people after refusing treatment himself. "I'd like to see a law enabling me to issue treatment orders," says Monk.

In the UK, doctors cannot treat someone against their will, though senior judges can order someone with TB to be kept in hospital. "This is a fundamental debate about civil liberties," says Monk. "Are individual rights more important than societal rights?"

“A patient infected a dozen other people after refusing treatment for TB himself”
Strengthening powers to enforce treatment would bring the UK more into line with the rest of the world, says Larry Gostin, professor of law at Georgetown University in Washington DC. "All courts and human rights commissions accept it as a valid power of the state," says Gostin. "But it shouldn't be used as a subterfuge for discrimination against the homeless, mentally ill and new asylum seekers, and should only be used with respect for individual rights."

A spokesman for the UK's Health Protection Agency in London says the law on infectious disease control is under review.

From issue 2499 of New Scientist magazine, 14 May 2005, page 5

How do people feel about this? Is this a mass violation of human rights or something which is merely protecting the public at large?
 
when it comes to public safety i go for protecting the majority. aren't the human rights of those being infected by the individual, being violated as well?
 
Quarantine and burn them...in time. Only the mentally ill shouldn't be allowed the decision for or against treatment.
 
Brings into question the lengths, and the means by which the law, and the doctors would go to restrain a person who refuses treatment.

Drugging a person into submission? Jail? Quarrentine? Mental Hospital? Straightjacket?
 
If you knowingly and willfully make someone ill and that person dies because of that illness, should that be considered manslaughter? Like having AIDS and not mentioning it to your partner or passing on TB?
 
I don't think they need many legal changes. They could arrest the person for causing grievous bodily harm, as in the case below

"In a landmark ruling, an HIV carrier was today found guilty of causing"biological" grievous bodily harm after he infected two lovers with the Aidsvirus.Mohammed Dica, 38, conned his first victim into having unprotected sex byclaiming he had had a vasectomy, and then persuaded a mother-of-two tosleep with him by declaring his love for her.Dica's conviction is the first successful prosecution in England and Walesfor sexually transmitting Aids, and the first for 137 years for infectingsomeone else with a sexually transmitted disease." http://www.whatisaids.com/wwwboard/messages/311.html
 
--well, if he refuse treatment and the doctor can't do nothing about it, why not issue an specific law or rules to place them in a certain places.
In the Phils., we have these kind of community where all people that is infected w/ Leprocy live,bec since it is very contagius (spell?? )the government put them there not bec they refuse treatment but to protect the general public w/ the desease.
Same thing with that TB guy in UK and other people as well who don't want to be treated, put them altogether in one place and let them live their treatment-free life.
 
A couple of points I'd like to raise (or maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate here) is that in theory the patient must have a pretty good reason why they don't want to receive treament in the first place. Think about it, you have a very nasty infectious disease which could easily be treated, would you say no just for the hell of it?

My second point is to do with the human rights aspect, if you say it's ok to force someone to be treated against there will then where do you draw the line? Plus with some long-term incurable diseases (for example aids) an infection can finally put someone out of their suffering, how has the right to dictate that a person must be treated therefore prelonging a life they no longer want?
 
Back
Top