Look, you're really generalizing here without sharing specifics that would seriously damage your point of view.

I've worked in an Infectious Disease clinic for about 4-5 years now. I've worked closely with the state, and with the local Health Department. You do NOT get an immediate pass that says "You're going to jail if you have Tuberculosis". You ONLY go to jail if you've refused treatment, refused to acknowledge you are a danger to others. Usually, you wind up getting confined in a medical facility AFTER a judge mandates that you do so because you are a risk to others.

Do some research on how TB works. Nasty disease. You have to take serious antibiotic and specialized treatment for six months. The problem is, people come in because they feel bad. They are told they have TB, start treatment. About a month into treatment, sometimes two.. they feel better. So they discontinue treatments, stop going to the doctor, begin living as though they are well. The TB hasn't gone away though. Now, it's had a taste of the antibiotic and mutated into a resistant strand to that particular antibiotic. In 6 months, John Doe starts feeling bad again, only this time when he goes to the doctor, he can't take that antibiotic anymore and must take another kind. The entire time he's felt better, he's been contagious and exposed god know how many people to the disease.

And this isn't like HIV. Tuberculosis is an AIRBORNE illness. You don't have to have contact with someone to catch it. You can just be in the same room someone has been in. Granted, the disease dies quickly once in the air.. around 72 hours. But oh.. the havoc it can wreak. You didn't mention the fact that the WHO declared it a world epidemic in 1993 and this past year just reported that the disease is levelling off.. thanks, in partial, to more extreme measures of treatment. Nor did you mention that tuberculosis kills around 2 million people each year . And lets not forget that TB and XDR-TB (Extreme Drug Resistent Tuberculosis) kills more people than any other infection .

So let me reiterate. You don't just go to jail for having TB. You don't just go to jail for having syphilis (yes, you can also be detained and quarantined for having syphilis if you do NOT comply with treatment. I've seen first hand how quickly syphilis can spread into an epidemic and just how quickly it can kill.. and it's nasty). You don't just have your rights denied and tossed into a cell. I've seen first hand people laugh in their doctors face and say they're giving it to as many people as possible. I've seen people just flat out tell me that they don't have it and they're not going to get treatment. In ALL the time I've worked in ID, only 2 (two) people have ever been quarantined and detained in a medical facility.. and it was for TB and syphilis.. and both people refused to comply with treatment multiple times. It's great and dandy if you want to refuse treatment.. but only when dealing with yourself. When you deal with a disease that affects society, then society must take a hand in it.

Unfortunately, there aren't enough specifics to fully argue the point. However, I feel fairly sure that it's ok to say someone should not be in jail without being a criminal.

I'm very aware how TB works, though thank you for listing telling us all. The man in question, however, *seems* to have been ignorant of just how much damage he could have been doing. Since we don't know how much he knew, or how often he was warned, I can't say if he refused treatment, or just couldn't afford it. It is possible, since he lost his job, that he could not afford the treatment, and that is why he was refusing it. I assume that these treatments are pricey. As for not wearing a mask... well, if he was truly ignorant, then there are many possibilities for not wanting to wear a mask.

Again, my problem is that he is in prison and being denied privileges as though he were a criminal when no criminal charges have been filed. He should be in a treatment facility, but he's not. He's in jail.

Also, even if you're going to lock someone up under civil law, don't you still have to have a trial or at least a hearing with a judge? (This is a general question.)

My reason for posting these things: what rights do these people have? They have dangerous illnesses, yes. They pose a danger to society, yes. But should they be tracked and imprisoned? Should they face criminal charges? And where does it end? Do people with MRSA deserve or need to be locked up? It's extremely contagious and potentially fatal, so why not quarantine these people?

If you have a fatal disease (not potentially fatal, but fatal disease) and it's highly communicable, you know this, and you do not seek treatment, that CAN be considered criminally negligent. At that time, you become a criminal.
MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), while potentially fatal and communicable, is highly treatable and once you've been treated, the incidence of recurrence (wihtout another source of infection) is unlikely. Your risk of transferring MRSA to the community at large is also very minimal. Let me repeat what I said earlier. TB is AIRBORNE . HIV and Syphilis are RISK BEHAVIOR affected.

Let's say you have a kid in school. One of their teachers gets sick with tuberculosis. They know they have it, took treatment for a month but because they felt better and thought they were over it, he/she stops taking the medication, forgets to go to the doctor and continues to be in the classroom. Of the 25 children there, let's say.. 15 start showing positive TB results and of the 15, ten actually get TB. How are YOU going to explain to the parents of the 15 children how that teacher's rights were infringed upon because they were negligent and stopped treatment?

And I have yet to see someone imprisoned for having HIV or AIDS.. and are you making a distinction between the two? Just because someone has HIV doesn't necessarily mean they have AIDS.. As far as I know, most places can't even prosecute someone who is knowingly participates in risk behaviors to spread the disease.
As far as tracking goes.. do you have a Social Security Number? A driver's license? It's just one more database in one more big federal agenda.

I'm very aware how TB works, though thank you for listing telling us all. The man in question, however, *seems* to have been ignorant of just how much damage he could have been doing. Since we don't know how much he knew, or how often he was warned, I can't say if he refused treatment, or just couldn't afford it. It is possible, since he lost his job, that he could not afford the treatment, and that is why he was refusing it. I assume that these treatments are pricey. As for not wearing a mask... well, if he was truly ignorant, then there are many possibilities for not wanting to wear a mask.

I'm not sure about other states, but I know that in my state.. the health department must ensure that you receive treatment. It's not just a cost issue. If you can't afford it, they make sure you get it. He could be placed in jail pending a hearing.. kids get removed from their homes all the time without a judges hearing.. because the environment may be a risk to the child. Perhaps this falls under the same heading. I'll talk to my friend (who actually has to track down syphilis people.. not an easy job) and find out what their policies are on it and get back to you.

At that time, you become a criminal.

True, you can have charges pressed and be convicted. However, neither has happened to this fellow. By definition of law, he is not a criminal. He will not have a criminal record because of this, unless charges are filed in the future. The lack of charges makes me believe that he was not maliciously refusing treatment. It seems as though they would have charged him in that case.

I'm not sure about other states, but I know that in my state.. the health department must ensure that you receive treatment. It's not just a cost issue. If you can't afford it, they make sure you get it. He could be placed in jail pending a hearing.. kids get removed from their homes all the time without a judges hearing.. because the environment may be a risk to the child. Perhaps this falls under the same heading. I'll talk to my friend (who actually has to track down syphilis people.. not an easy job) and find out what their policies are on it and get back to you.

Ok, that's really good to know. And comforting, actually. Thanks!

He has a lawyer, yes. He has a hearing to decide if he should be released, yes. But did he have a trial that put him in jail in the first place? Unfortunately, the article doesn't say, it only says he has not been charged with any criminal acts. I really have a problem with him being treated like a criminal, without charges being pressed. If he had a civil law trial in which his rights were taken away, then fine. It sucks, but at least he had a day in court. However, a hearing months later to see if he should be released does not take the place of a trial at the beginning of his incarceration.

I've asked a professor of mine to see if he can get any more info about this guy, and see if he had a trial at the beginning of all this. Or a hearing, or something that would mean he was not denied due process. (He's a lawyer, and I'm hoping he can get info easier than I)

Actually, those removals without a judge's order are unConstitutional a large percentage of the time (read: not ALL the time, but a good chunk of it), but the parents don't have the legal muscle to fight it.

No, I realize that people wait in jail for trials, but he's been there since last July. If he hasn't had a trial or hearing yet, then something is wrong. But then, the people who stay in jail waiting for trials have been charged with crimes, and he has not. So, I figure that, in order for him to still be in prison, some kind of hearing must have taken place by now. I just wish I knew if it had or not. I mean, to lock someone away for being mentally ill, isn't there a hearing? Shouldn't this be the same kind of thing? The reasons are the same: needs treatment, danger to self, danger to public... and I thought there was a hearing to determine that kind of situation, so I would assume the same here.

Also, and this is off subject, but I would say that not being able to shower is cruel and unusual. Now, I know some people wouldn't care, but it would seriously bother me. Eeeewww. (This statement is only half serious)

Correct! He will have a Civil record. As I stated before civil law is much different than criminal law. Like when your house if forclosed upon you have a judgement against you that lasts for a decade or more, but no criminal charges filed.



You mean lack of criminal charges? If a medical authority states he is a danger to himself or others the judge has the authority to lock his silly butt up until the judge feels like letting him go or 18 months which ever comes first.



This is considdered a medical emergency when a person with a contagious illness does not follow proper medical protocol. To stop an epidemic the health department has the authority to confine any and all infected people. This person could start an epidemic all by himself. don't you think that it is wise to lock him up? In Florida it is called the Baker Act. Each state has a similar law and there is a federal law as well.

Not in jail. Hospital or treatment facility maybe. Not jail.

Ok, clear something up for me: I understand that in criminal law, a person can be taken into custody before the trial. This would be the same as this man being taken into quarantine. Then, a hearing should come next in either case, correct? Please tell me that I can't be locked up without a hearing or trial or something just because I have bird flu or something. Please tell me I have some protection of this.

And, allow me to clarify one more point. Some people have implied that he was willfully and maliciously trying to spread TB. I was trying to point out that the lack of criminal charges would make this unlikely. A man with AIDS who willfully and maliciously infects people can be charged with Assault with a deadly weapon at least and (I think) attempted murder. (I don't know if anyone's been charged with murder or not, though I think not) I was just thinking that this guy was guilty of ignorance more than malice.

In Florida the patient has to agree to treatment to stay in the hospital or treatment center. If the patient refuses treatment then he has to stay somewhere, jail is the only other place to go.



You get a hearing, you don't have to be there for the hearing. The judge can appoint your lawyer give him five minutes to review the case file and then have a hearing. You get told what happened later. this is true in criminal and civil law. even if you go to trial you can be tried in criminal court and you don't even have to be in the country. but you had a hearing and a trial according to the law it was fair.



I was not one of those people. He could have religious reasons not to wear the mask or take medicine, it would not matter. The man could not be allowed to walk the streets spreading illness with each breath.

But he is taking the medicine. Also, it seems as though the jail is unequipped to handle his case since he cannot shower. A hospital or treatment facility would surely be able to care for him better.



But if you want your own lawyer? You have a right to choose your council, right?





I did not mean to imply that you had. My original comment was in response to those who had. This also leads me to wonder, if he's willing to wear the mask and is taking his medication, shouldn't he be released? I'm really hoping the answer is yes.

Also, if he could not take medication or wear a mask because of religious reasons, I have a feeling that would cause a lot of legal headaches.

Something I'd like to mention at this point... I went back and re-read the news articles. He came specifically to the United States to be treated for this. He'd seen multiple doctors, both in Russia and here in the States.. I cannot believe that one, let alone all of them, failed to communicate the seriousness of his illness. He knew. Regardless of what he says, he had to know. One thing you also failed to mention is the SERIOUS nature of the particular strain of TB he has. He has the rarest form of XDR-TB.. For many people, (mostly those with HIV or auto-immune diseases (i.e. transplant patients, crohn's disease patients, burn victims)) he is walking death. Mask or no mask. It responds to NO treatment, it is extremely virulent and can kill someone without a healthy immune system within a month. I am amazed he was turned loose with a treatment plan the first time around.
Let me re-state this. This particular type of TB is EXTREMELY RARE. Only a handful of cases has ever been noted. When it was first noted some time back, it caused a bit of a panic in the HIV community. We had people frantically asking for TB tests the second they had any sort of cough or tightness of breathing.

Now, as to the condition of his confinement.. well, based on what I read, he needs representation for more ethical treatment. The facility should be able to make arrangements for showers and some sort of.. entertainment. A TV. books. Anything. But to be honest, they may be scared of him. And to be quite honest, I wouldn't want to be within the same building as him.

[quote]

But he is taking the medicine. Also, it seems as though the jail is unequipped to handle his case since he cannot shower. A hospital or treatment facility would surely be able to care for him better.






Sure you can fire the one the court gave you and hire anyone else with a law license, but the cost is yours as well.



Yes, under guard. He as a choice, take the medicine or they make him take the medicine.



I did not take it as you had, I just wanted to clear the air so others reading did not make that mistake.



Nope, you only get one chance to kill millions. If he can convince the doctors to convince a judge then yes. My advice is he should not hold his breath waiting for that one. If the doctor signs off on letting him go then the doctor would be responsible for any new cases caused by that man. They don't 'make enough malpractice insurance for that case. Would you stake your job, future income, and your life savings on someone who was not responsible the first time?

Also, it seems as though the jail is unequipped to handle his case since he cannot shower. A hospital or treatment facility would surely be able to care for him better.

Ah.. but he IS in a medical facility. He is just confined to the same area they reserve for criminals. Most hospitals and medical facilities that are within reasonable distance of jail/prison have some part of the facility that is relegated to criminals. In our hospital, it is a particular wing on a particular floor. This allows easier guarding than having inmates spread through out the hospital. Our hospital even has routes in the basements and back corridors for the transport of said individuals.. again, to allow easier security.
I have to question why he's not getting books/magazines, etc.. nor a shower.

Would you stake your job, future income, and your life savings on someone who was not responsible the first time?

Not to mention the dozens, hundreds, possible thousands whose lives would be at risk because he was not responsible the first time.