The Ethics of Quarantine

Ross Upshur
Virtual Mentor. 2003;5(11):393-395.


Here are two excerpts:

There are 2 independent ethical considerations to consider here: whether the concept of quarantine is justified ethically and whether it is effective. It is also important to make a clear distinction between quarantine and isolation. Quarantine refers to the separation of those exposed individuals who are not yet symptomatic for a period of time (usually the known incubation period of the suspected pathogen) to determine whether they will develop symptoms. Quarantine achieves 2 goals. First, it stops the chain of transmission because it is less possible to infect others if one is not in social circulation. Second, it allows the individuals under surveillance to be identified and directed toward appropriate care if they become symptomatic. This is more important in diseases where there is presymptomatic shedding of virus. Isolation, on the other hand, is keeping those who have symptoms from circulation in general populations.

Justification of quarantine and quarantine laws stems from a general moral obligation to prevent harm to (infection of) others if this can be done. Most democracies have public health laws that do permit quarantine. Even though quarantine is a curtailment of civil liberties, it can be broadly justified if several criteria can be met.

(cut)

Secondly, the proportionality, or least-restrictive-means, principle should be observed. This holds that public health authorities should use the least restrictive measures proportional to the goal of achieving disease control. This would indicate that quarantine be made voluntary before more restrictive means and sanctions such as mandatory orders or surveillance devices, home cameras, bracelets, or incarceration are contemplated. It is striking to note that in the Canadian SARS outbreak in the Greater Toronto area, approximately 30,000 persons were quarantined at some time. Toronto Public Health reports writing only 22 orders for mandatory detainment [3]. Even if the report is a tenfold underestimate, the remaining instances of voluntary quarantine constitute an impressive display of civic-mindedness.

Thirdly, reciprocity must be upheld. If society asks individuals to curtail their liberties for the good of others, society has a reciprocal obligation to assist them in the discharge of their obligations. That means providing individuals with adequate food and shelter and psychological support, accommodating them in their workplaces, and not discriminating against them. They should suffer no penalty on account of discharging their obligations to society.

The info is here.

In Deal, Hundreds of Mentally Ill People Will Leave Confinement of Nursing Home

By Anemona Hartcollis
The New York Times
Published September 12, 2011

Hundreds of mentally ill people who have been confined to nursing homes, sometimes in prisonlike conditions, would move to apartments or other housing within three years under a legal settlement with New York State.

The settlement resolved a case that was filed in Brooklyn federal court in 2006 and that accused the state of violating the spirit of its own longstanding rules for housing mentally ill people.

In researching the case, the plaintiffs found that psychiatric centers and nursing homes had developed “turnaround agreements, which essentially were written agreements to transfer patients back and forth,” Veronica S. Jung, senior staff attorney for New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, which helped to represent plaintiffs, said Monday.

“This certainly raises broader, troubling questions about the role of nursing homes, and their financial stakes, within the mental health care system,” Ms. Jung said.

The settlement came as the judge in the case, Brian M. Cogan, set a trial date for early October, Ms. Jung said.

“It did seem pretty clear that the specter of going to trial in the next few days probably motivated the state to move more quickly in negotiations,” Ms. Jung said. The state has agreed to pay $2.5 million in legal fees and costs to the plaintiffs’ counsel.

Andrew J. Zambelli, counselor to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, said the state had settled the case because “it just jibed with our kind of policy viewpoint — care for the vulnerable, into the community, using money appropriately.”

Under longstanding legal principle in New York and elsewhere, the mentally ill cannot be confined unless they are considered a threat to themselves or others, and should be housed in the least restrictive setting appropriate for their needs.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Cuomo administration has agreed to reform the process used to assess whether patients are capable of living in the community and want to live there. The state has also promised to hire independent contractors who would be trained to make the assessments.

The entire story can be found here.