This move is popular, but I think it's a bad move. 60 days incarceration is life destroying, people have jobs and families. The state doesn't care to help.
People will hide thier diseases if this is normalized.
Hard disagree. She was given the opportunity to voluntarily seek treatment and refused. She is a danger to herself and to the general public.
"The Tacoma woman, who is identified in court documents as V.N., was booked into a room "specially equipped for isolation, testing and treatment" at the Pierce County Jail, the local health department said, adding that she will still be able to choose whether she gets the "live-saving treatment she needs."
Um, the state was iirc picking up the treatment bill (not doing the whole Typhoid Mary thing of saying you cannot have a job, but you aren't getting any support either).
She chose not to get treatment, and it was made very clear that was an option, but she was required to isolate from everyone in that case. Instead she used public transit, casinos, she went to the hospital without telling any of the doctors she had an incredibly contagious disease.
What you're saying is we should not criminalize drunk driving, because then people will hide that they're drunk driving.
I feel good that the state is taking care of the health of the rest of us. I would be horrified if my Mom got TB because some a-hole with TB decided to go grocery shopping at the same store as she.
There have been few situations like this since 1980 in Washington, per local TV news:
> This case is the third in 20 years where the health department has sought a court order to detain someone who is potentially contagious and refusing to seek treatment for tuberculosis.
It is a terrible thing for individuals to face imprisonment due to their unwillingness to accept pharmaceuticals being administered to them without their consent. This situation represents a significant abuse of power by both the government and the medical community. This abuse of power will certainly spill into many areas of peoples lives, one of which, consequently, people will develop a profound fear of seeking medical assistance, akin to the fear experienced during World War 1/2.
She's not in custody because she refused treatment. She's in custody because she was not willing to stay away from other people despite carrying tuberculosis.
Despite being aware she had tuberculosis, and being told that she had to isolate she was seen using public transport, going to casinos, traveling in cars with others, etc.
We know about the last one because she got in a car wreck, and then she failed to tell the first responders she had tuberculosis, and then she was taken to an ER, where she didn't tell the doctors there she had TB either. They were trying to work out why her lungs were F'd despite her knowing exactly why, and intentionally putting everyone there at risk.
So don't put this down as "unwillingness to accept pharmaceuticals being administered to them without their consent". If you have a contagious disease you can either:
* Get treated
* Isolate indefinitely
Anything else means you've decided your personal freedom is more important than the life or freedom of everyone else.
When someone who has a highly contagious and potentially fatal disease (with significant sequelae if you happen to catch it and survive) refuses treatment or an order detaining them at their home, it is in the interest of the common good to either isolate them, or if that is not socially feasible, forcibly treat them.
Are you on crack? She could kill others by spreading it.
Your rights end when you start putting others at risk. It’s the same reason you can’t get hammered and go drive or build a nuclear reactor in your potting shed without a permit.
Why did this take so long? I'm 100% in favor of people refusing medical care that affects only them, but if you have some significant disease that's a population level threat - your choices should be accepting treatment or MAID.
Related, was this infection actually a significant threat? I ask because the woman seems to have been in public and not taking precautions for over a year - did she infect anyone? Why not?
If the infection was a serious threat, then the medical and court systems have failed by allowing her to be in public for over a year. If the infection was not a significant threat then NPR has failed by reporting it as if it were.
> Related, was this infection actually a significant threat?
Good question. Tuberculosis is weird. The CDC estimates that 13M Americans have latent infections. Asymptomatic people are only tested in the US under special circumstances. As far as I know, no widespread surveillance or treatment program exists. And yet the actual burden of disease caused by TB in the US seems quite low.
The only population that is probably tested routinely are those entering jails and prisons (in the USA), where testing is near 100% as you don't want to let someone into such a crowded situation who is potentially infected.
I realize this is different, but let’s recall that not too long ago folks who did not the Covid vaccine were vilified since government agencies falsely said that one can’t spread Covid once vaccinated.
A friend of a friend - who was actually an infectious disease doctor - picked up TB while working in Africa. They had to do a video call with the local health department every morning for the health department to witness them taking their meds. If anyone was going to follow the treatment regime it would be the infectious disease doctor.
25 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 63.3 ms ] threadPeople will hide thier diseases if this is normalized.
"The Tacoma woman, who is identified in court documents as V.N., was booked into a room "specially equipped for isolation, testing and treatment" at the Pierce County Jail, the local health department said, adding that she will still be able to choose whether she gets the "live-saving treatment she needs."
Um, the state was iirc picking up the treatment bill (not doing the whole Typhoid Mary thing of saying you cannot have a job, but you aren't getting any support either).
She chose not to get treatment, and it was made very clear that was an option, but she was required to isolate from everyone in that case. Instead she used public transit, casinos, she went to the hospital without telling any of the doctors she had an incredibly contagious disease.
What you're saying is we should not criminalize drunk driving, because then people will hide that they're drunk driving.
There have been few situations like this since 1980 in Washington, per local TV news:
> This case is the third in 20 years where the health department has sought a court order to detain someone who is potentially contagious and refusing to seek treatment for tuberculosis.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/tacoma/tacoma-woman...
Despite being aware she had tuberculosis, and being told that she had to isolate she was seen using public transport, going to casinos, traveling in cars with others, etc.
We know about the last one because she got in a car wreck, and then she failed to tell the first responders she had tuberculosis, and then she was taken to an ER, where she didn't tell the doctors there she had TB either. They were trying to work out why her lungs were F'd despite her knowing exactly why, and intentionally putting everyone there at risk.
So don't put this down as "unwillingness to accept pharmaceuticals being administered to them without their consent". If you have a contagious disease you can either:
Anything else means you've decided your personal freedom is more important than the life or freedom of everyone else.Your rights end when you start putting others at risk. It’s the same reason you can’t get hammered and go drive or build a nuclear reactor in your potting shed without a permit.
To me it's akin to getting diagnosed with HIV and going out having sex with people. TB is no joke.
Related, was this infection actually a significant threat? I ask because the woman seems to have been in public and not taking precautions for over a year - did she infect anyone? Why not?
If the infection was a serious threat, then the medical and court systems have failed by allowing her to be in public for over a year. If the infection was not a significant threat then NPR has failed by reporting it as if it were.
Good question. Tuberculosis is weird. The CDC estimates that 13M Americans have latent infections. Asymptomatic people are only tested in the US under special circumstances. As far as I know, no widespread surveillance or treatment program exists. And yet the actual burden of disease caused by TB in the US seems quite low.
She is in custody because she refuses to self isolate, not because she refused treatment.
The choices for "a person has a highly transmissible, extremely dangerous disease" are:
This person did not want (a), and agreed to (b), and then demonstrated wanton disregard for everyone else, so is now getting (c).TB isn't a joke.