Government Role in a Disease Related Emergency

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Ansury

… it sounds like you’re saying it would be a hospital/doctor’s moral responsibility to prevent someone infected with a truly dangerous disease from leaving quarantine. Is that a realistic expectation?

Yeah. Pretty much. Here’s another example: say I see that a pedestrian is about to be hit an automobile. I tackle the pedestrian away from the automobile but, by doing so, I break the pedestrians ribs. Morally, I had the resposibility to save the pedestrian’s life, but I am still liable for breaking the pedestrian’s ribs. Although, now that i have thought about it more, won’t my logic morally justify the role of government in preventing the usage of narcotics?

This goes off on a silly tangent, but the speeding analogy of a driver’s moral responsibility to stop others from breaking driving laws strikes me as complete fantasy, the way I am understanding it. This is just not going to happen, not only would it be potentially incredibly dangerous for the moral activist, it’s also impossible and impractical.

It’s not about preventing the idiot speeder from breaking the laws, but about ceasing the idiot driver from being a threat to others. Btw, I don’t like where I’m going with this.

By “catch all” I mean that using property ownership contracts don’t completely resolve a problem like this. Like a government regulation, there’s going to be a ton of loopholes and differing situations preventing a lease contract (if they even have a landlord, for example) from being used to force a contagious person into isolation. Perhaps I’m missing the point you were trying to make with your argument.

1. I’m talking about a libertarian/an-cap society.
2. The fact that a contract states that what shall not be permitted can’t stop someone from actually doing what is not permitted. Just like marijuana laws don’t actually stop people from consuming marijuama.

I guess I feel it doesn’t apply because it’s not addressing the specific situation I’m thinking about. By what you said (clarify for me if this is wrong), it sounds like you’d use legal contracts (lease agreements, etc) to protect the general populace from individuals with dangerous ailments. But I don’t see this ever working–and then there’s the fact that landowners themselves don’t have to agree to anything at all. Did I miss your point entirely?

I maintain that the free market will do a better job than the state.

I was asking whether a landlord (property owner) should effectively act as law enforcement within their own territory. Regarding rights ending, that just means you don’t have a right to anything that infringes on another’s basic rights. (side note: We haven’t defined “rights” here but hopefully we agree that liberty, property, peace (and life) are basic rights.)

I’m going with the libertarian definitions of rights.

Explain for me. Non-aggression to me isn’t the same as pacifism, and I’m not a pacifist. If we’re talking about protecting someone’s rights, life or property, I am okay with the use of force.

Nowadays, I think it’s called the the non-initiation of aggression principle. Anyway, I think I mispoke. You have to apply the NIoAP to everything.

Interesting response, but I’m not sure we’re communicating clearly. I want to clarify that I’m thinking about a very specific situation here–the one that the OP alluded to about enforcing quarantines on unwilling patients. Imagine a situation where a patient is at a hospital (maybe just a doctor’s office?) and it’s determined that they may have a highly dangerous and contagious disease. The patient, for whatever reason, still wants to leave even though medical professionals feel that they pose a risk of spreading the disease. Who’s responsible for preventing this? Let’s also assume that the “patient” may be a big tough SOB and the medical personnel a pack of old ladies.

What I’ve been trying to point out is that there are a lot of questions to be answered concerning the assumption in the case. Perhaps the hostipal has a policy that states that patients shall be quarantined for the reasons you alluded to. If so, the patient is already willing to participate in the quarantine.

(Granted, this may not be a 100% realistic scenario, but I’m not creative enough to think of a better one right now. Unless you want to argue all quarantines are ineffective and pointless (maybe? I’m not an expert on the subject), I’m basically thinking of a quarantine situation which requires the use of force to protect everyone else from a contagious person’s wreckless behavior.)

Let me give you another example: Say that Disneyland has a policy (that visitors have to agreed to by purchasing a ticket to the park) that, in the case of an outbreak of XYZ disease, all visitors shall be innoculated against said disease. Thus, there is no unwilling visitor since the visitor already agreed to be innoculated against XYZ disease for reasons given.

[Ansury]

Been sick lately, so maybe it’s the pigbird flu talking here… [:P]

@liberty student

@Ansury

a quarantine situation which requires the use of force to protect everyone else from a contagious person’s wreckless behavior

Use of force, to protect everyone.

Should throw up red flags.

Point noted, but if I were living in a nation that was being attacked (invaded), most people would be okay with “the use of force to protect everyone” in that case, just as most would be okay with the use of force to keep say, ebola patients quarantined, and just as most are okay with police arresting drunken drivers “to protect everyone”. So it’s a red flag among certain applications of force (anti-terrorism for example), but there are certainly legitimate and obvious threats that innocent people do need protection from so use of force is not wrong by default (unless you’re a pacifist).

Let’s try this another way-- how would you suppose that a free market / libertarian world would solve a quarantine problem like this? I’m looking for the kind of response here that would really deal a knock out blow to the argument that a government protective force would be useful (if not needed) as a last resort here. The way I look at it, someone wreckless enough to disregard a quarantine request is the one who has initiated aggression, not the people enforcing the quarantine.

[Zavoi]

@Patrick Knight

Let’s assume that the disease in question, like many diseases, is most contagious when it’s not showing symptoms and the people don’t know they’re sick. Let’s also assume that it’s spread so much by this point, that you don’t know who you caught it from.Then there is little way to make a legal claim against someone for you getting sick. Especially in the case that you die.

Well, if that’s the case, there’s really nothing you can do. If nobody knows about the disease until it’s too late, then there’s nothing that anyone could have done, private or government.

@Ansury

I want to clarify that I’m thinking about a very specific situation here–the one that the OP alluded to about enforcing quarantines on unwilling patients. Imagine a situation where a patient is at a hospital (maybe just a doctor’s office?) and it’s determined that they may have a highly dangerous and contagious disease. The patient, for whatever reason, still wants to leave even though medical professionals feel that they pose a risk of spreading the disease. Who’s responsible for preventing this? Let’s also assume that the “patient” may be a big tough SOB and the medical personnel a pack of old ladies.

The doctors don’t have a positive duty to prevent the patient from leaving: it is the patient who has a negative duty to refrain from going out and infecting other people.

@Daniel

Here’s another example: say I see that a pedestrian is about to be hit an automobile. I tackle the pedestrian away from the automobile but, by doing so, I break the pedestrians ribs. Morally, I had the resposibility to save the pedestrian’s life, but I am still liable for breaking the pedestrian’s ribs. Although, now that i have thought about it more, won’t my logic morally justify the role of government in preventing the usage of narcotics?

You have no ethical obligation to tackle the pedestrian—if you do nothing, you cannot later be held liable for damage to anyone because you have not caused any harm (assuming you did not bring about the danger in the first place). If you do save the pedestrian, however, you aren’t liable for breaking their ribs because it’s impossible for the pedestrian to argue that you “should not” have saved them. But narcotics in most cases aren’t deadly, so it’s wrong to use force to prevent someone from using them. (I’ve started another thread to discuss this issue.)

@Daniel

Perhaps the hostipal has a policy that states that patients shall be quarantined for the reasons you alluded to. If so, the patient is already willing to participate in the quarantine.

Whether or not the patient agreed to the hospital’s policy is irrelevant because you can’t alienate your future will like this. For example, if Disneyland has a policy that smoking is not allowed and those who do will be detained for 30 days, and they catch me smoking, they can make me leave but they can’t detain me for 30 days, because this condition was purely a “contract of will” that is unenforceable. If the hospital is within their rights to quarantine the patient, then this is because the patient is a danger to other people, not because the patient agreed to it at some earlier time.