Hey again everyone!
This past week we learned about public health law in class and all had to read a case that falls under that category of law. The suit was brought about by Mary V. Kirk against the Board of Health of the city of Aiken, South Carolina. It was found that Mrs. Kirk was afflicted with leprosy, a very contagious disease. The board of health then passed resolutions requiring her to be isolated in the city hospital for infectious diseases in order to protect the rest of the community. Miss Kirk alleged that the kind of leprosy she had was not contagious and that the conditions of her isolation were too vile for a woman of her “culture and refinement.” After the board was asked to show cause, Miss Kirk was granted a temporary injunction, preventing the board from moving her to the city hospital. They deemed it unnecessary for her to be sent into isolation when her house and property had already been quarantined, which, as far as the courts could see, she did not violate. In order to stop the spread of infectious diseases and protect the general public, public health officials rely on two different strategies: isolation or quarantine. Isolation is for the people who are already ill and must be moved away from the healthy population. Quarantine is the restriction of movement of those who have been exposed to an infectious agent and are putting the healthy population at risk. In the situation of Miss Kirk, the courts believed that her quarantine was effective in protecting the health of the citizens of Aiken.
This type of issue is one that is often brought up in the field of public health. Individual rights versus protection of the community. Individuals, like Mary Kirk, are frequently upset by the restrictions or mandates placed on them by various health boards that are meant to improve the health of the greater community. I think it’s important that we have these boards looking out for the population on a large scale. If after a thorough investigation, the board deems it necessary, I think they definitely have the right to decide if someone should be isolated or quarantined. But the board must be absolutely sure that the community is at high risk. In the case of Miss Kirk, she had a less contagious form of leprosy and the people around her really weren’t in jeopardy. It’s important that the courts exist so that they can make sure the boards aren’t going to far. I think that it’s better if there’s an error on the side of the individual (which the court can fix), rather than an error on the side of the community. This utilitarian approach will protect the most amounts of people. A state would rather have one sick person rather than an entire sick community, which would cost them astronomical amounts of time and money.
You wrote, "Quarantine is the restriction of movement of those who have been exposed to an infectious agent and are putting the healthy population at risk. In the situation of Miss Kirk, the courts believed that her quarantine was effective in protecting the health of the citizens of Aiken."
ReplyDeleteActually, quarantine is restriction for people who have been exposed but are not yet sick. They may put others at risk because often people are contagious before symptoms start to show. In this case, Miss Kirk already had leprosy, so really what we are talking about in her case is isolation.