the best poll ever

[bobbylien]

I wasn't sure what to title this as, so here we go...
If a man/woman gets an extremely infectious disease, should that person be forced into quarantine?
Yes or no and why.

[NortheastCynic]

Yes, a person does not have a right to be a public health threat. If you have an infectious and deadly disease, you must be quarentined because if you are not you pose a threat to the right of life of those around you.

-NC

[lily]

Yes. As we saw with the TB case, it is so easy to get on a plane and spread it to thousands. I don't like the idea of forcing a person to take medication, or to "imprison" him, but the ends justify the means in this case. Just think about victim one in the AIDS epidemic.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Possibly. I'm concerned about the risk of abuse. I want to say yes, but I keep thinking it could be abused.

[firefox]

I'm going to say no by default, but it's a difficult decision. I'm not sure how I feel about it, other than that it could be used and abused for nefarious purposes.

[bobbylien]

Alright, for those of you who said yes, would you also support mandatory tattoos for people with serious STDs? I'm still leaning towards yes but I'm still not sure.
As for you firefox, would you really allow someone with an extremely contagious disease(who knows he/she has it) to leave the hospital, hoping that the person comes back? Is this worth possibly millions of lives?

[NortheastCynic]

Mandatory tattoos? No. Absolutely not. A person can go about their lives without putting someone in danger without tattoos, if they have an infectious disease, they cannot.

-NC

[lily]

Mandatory tattoos bring up such an ugly picture in my mind booby. This may sound callous, but in this day and age anyone that has sex without a condom........also as nasty as an STD is, it's not air born.

[firefox]

Alright, for those of you who said yes, would you also support mandatory tattoos for people with serious STDs? I'm still leaning towards yes but I'm still not sure.
As for you firefox, would you really allow someone with an extremely contagious disease(who knows he/she has it) to leave the hospital, hoping that the person comes back? Is this worth possibly millions of lives?


In a vacuum, I might be OK with this. However, in the real world, we have a couple of important problems:

1. Self ownership is supposed to be paramount. Forcing people to be tattooed or whatever if they don't want it violates this.

2. Doing this kind of thing would lead to unintended results, which would amount to a cure worse than the disease (literally!). For example, you'd need police powers to enforce the law, more bureaucrats to determine whether people are infected (and be skewed by bribes, etc.). The list of potential problems goes on and on.

In summary, private (for profit or non profit) organizations could/should develop in order to address problems like this. Without the ability to force a one size fits all "solution" on everyone (ie, a monopoly), consumers/patients/the general public are ultimately in charge. If Private Inoculation Company screws over a lot of people, there will be hell to pay: They can be sued, boycotted, or the owners/offending workers can be prosecuted if necessary. You can't do that with government programs!

[cornnfedd]

if the are contageious......

otherwise what does it matter..

[stannis]

Yes of course, if it is both contagious and dangerous.

[micfranklin]

Yes, until they can cure or at least treat the disease. This should've been a common sense answer.

[Nitrus]

Yes, just because they are diseased, why should we have the bother of keep away from such people? lol.

But seriously, it would be stupid if they werent.

[Buck Laser]

Only if it's easily communicable. Really doesn't matter about AIDS.