Research Paper: Quarantine
quarantine laws in disease control
Introduction
Background/ Literature Review
- Evaluation of ancient and modern quarantine laws of communicable diseases control.
Discussion
- Analysis of ethical, legal, and sociological aspects of disease control methods including isolation and quarantine.
- Evaluation of quarantine and isolation laws in bioterrorism preparedness and response
Conclusion
Recomemndation
Abstract
This research evaluates the effectiveness of state/ federal quarantine laws in disease control. It encompasses a detailed evaluation of ancient and modern quarantine laws of communicable diseases control. Also, an analysis of ethical, legal, and sociological aspects of disease control laws including isolation and quarantine will be undertaken. Finally, another detailed evaluation of quarantine and isolation laws in bioterrorism preparedness and response will be embraced.
Research Paper: The effectiveness of state/ federal
Quarantine laws in disease control
Introduction
Quarantine is a concept and procedure whereby movements of people who have been infected by a disease organism are restricted from infiltrating places where uninfected people dwell. This document contains a comprehensive review of quarantine laws as they have existed in United States of America over the years. It would be supplemented by a back ground literature review; discussion’ conclusion and recommendations
Background/Literature Review
As it relates to United States of America history has shown where quarantine emerged in the 17th century exactly somewhere during 1663. At this time there was a smallpox outbreak in New York. Subsequently, a quarantine station was actually constructed in Bedloe’s Island. However, the very first quarantine hospital was constructed in Philadelphia Lazaretto during 1799/ This hospital has evolved into an historic landmark comparable to Swinburne, Angel and Ellis Island quarantine facilities (Sehdev, 2002).
During the flu pandemic in 1918 these facilities proved grossly inadequate. Alternative measures were employed to address the acuteness of the situation. Interestingly, though by 1963 when the last person to be quarantined in United States of America was undertaken and it was believed that there was no more need for quarantine facilities an emergency occurred. An attorney was discovered by Centers for Disease Control to have contracted drug resistant tuberculosis requiring quarantine intervention. He challenged the CDC diagnosis while being ordered to a New York quarantine hospital. To the surprise of public health authorities the condition subsided without treatment and the attorney was released. This became a very controversial issue forcing congress to re-examine quarantine laws in United States of America (Sehdev, 2002).
- Evaluation of ancient and modern quarantine
laws of communicable diseases control.
According to the National Counterenet of State Legislative Laws Public health quarantine and isolation are legal in the United States of America even though they are seldom implemented in the event of wide spread communicable diseases. Instead authorities may choose to use isolation in protecting the the public from exposure to infected people. Public health quarantine authorities must be careful as to what measures they use in restricting people’s movement the movement because some laws have become obsolete and some patients can challenge the validity of the intervention as in the case of the attorney in 2007 who was ordered to a quarantine hospital for a resistant strain of tuberculosis.
It is important that precautionary measures be taken prior to ordering quarantine for people may have been exposed to diseases of communicable dimensions except it can be detected whether they are really ill from the disease organism. This is the most modern approach to quarantine. For instance, formerly authorities tended to quarantine people who may have contracted a communicable disease and do not know that they have the condition. In other situations they may show no signs and symptoms of the diseases. These are some modern quarantine considerations emerging over the past decade (Locy, 2003).
Discussion
- Analysis of ethical, legal, and sociological aspects of disease control methods including isolation and quarantine.
The application of quarantine laws can have stigmatizing effects on a person since the individual/s may be deemed infectious nationally or before the public. Therefore, using quarantine or isolation powers can create ethical violations impinging on civil liberties. Individuals do have rights regarding submitting to quarantine orders. There is a due process of the law which must be complied with if public health authorities are to invent quarantine during a communicable disease outbreak. For instance quarantine or isolation ought to be conducted in a least restrictive setting according to public health standards. Men must be separated from women and isolated in relation to the severity of the infection. Recently, there have been no reasons for any extensive modification of quarantine laws in the United States of America CDC reports have been that in United States of America the last massive isolation and quarantine program was enforced during the Spanish flu influenza pandemic in 1918–1919.
Recently, incidences have been reduced significantly except for a passenger arriving in United States in 1963 who was ordered to be placed in federal quarantine due to a suspected smallpox infection. Again an incident in 2007 involving a traveler diagnose with drug resistant tuberculosis was placed in isolation. This incident aroused great controversies from an ethical perspective. The SARS outbreak in 2003 CDC was more conscious of the ethical, legal, and sociological aspects of disease control methods. As such, an isolation or quarantine order was not immediately issued. Instead, CDC did conducted ‘active surveillance, visual screening of passengers, and handed out Travel Health Alert notices’ (Centers for Disease Control, 2013).
According to recent surveys carried out in 2007 for Trust for America's Health data retrieved revealed that 9 out of 10 Americans would comply with voluntary quarantine. However, they would prefer to remain at home and stay home especially, if the communicable disease reaches pandemic proportions. This appears be a public consensus. Further, of the 10 percent who would willingly consent to the government's quarantine restrictions they would comply based on the fact of fearing they lose their jobs should they remain at home. They would not receive an income. Certainly they have bills to pay (Centers for Disease control, 2013)
Evaluation of quarantine and isolation laws in bioterrorism preparedness and response
Bioterrorist activities continue to threaten home land security. Isolation laws are not exactly the same because the weapons are entirely different. People exposed to toxic gases must be far removed from the geographic location where toxicity of the gas could affect them. It is not simply setting aside an area for people who have been affected. It also entails keeping people away from toxic substance. This is far more tedious than simple quarantine and isolation laws where the process of the law and right of individuals must be taken into consideration (Centers for Disease control, 2013).
For example, quarantine officers have the power to arrest non complaint persons, especially, in cases where there is a biochemical threat because he/she will die from the gas explosion fumes if continues in the environment. In such cases those individuals could be placed in custody of a quarantine officer who will ensure his/her safety. While these laws appear adequate the type of bioterrorists ware fare existing in the twenty-first century CBRN defense against bioterrorism in relation to quarantine laws ought to be strengthened because there could be language barriers to communication during announcement of quarantine due to a bioterrorists attack (Articles Critical of Bird Flu Quarantine, 2009).
Conclusion.
This document sought to examine the effectiveness of state/ federal Quarantine laws in disease control. A Background/Literature Review was undertaken and it was discovered that quarantine laws emerged in the 17th century exactly somewhere during 1663. Next an evaluation of ancient and modern quarantine laws of communicable diseases control was examined. Data retrieved pointed to the fact that formerly authorities tended to quarantine people who may have contracted a communicable disease and do not know that they have the condition. In other situations they may show no signs and symptoms of the diseases. However, application of modern quarantine laws authorities have to look at the of ethical, legal, and sociological aspects of disease control before ordering quarantine since people have been challenging the law from these perspectives while refusing adherence to quarantine (Centers for Disease control, 2013).
Ethically studies reveal where 9 out of 10 Americans would comply with voluntary quarantine. However, they would prefer to remain at home especially, if the communicable disease reaches pandemic proportions. This appears be a public consensus. Further, of the 10 who would willingly consent to the government's quarantine restrictions they would comply based on the fact of fearing they lose their jobs should they remain at home. They would not receive an income. Certainly they have bills to pay (Centers for Disease control, 2013)
An valuation of quarantine and isolation laws in bioterrorism preparedness and response was the next aspect of this discussion. Simply setting aside an area for people who have been affected may not be enough in a bioterrorists attack. It must embody keeping people away from toxic substance. This is far more tedious than simple quarantine and isolation laws where the process of the law and right of individuals must be taken into consideration (Centers for Disease control, 2013).
Recommendation
It is strongly recommended that home land security make an evaluation of laws related to bioterrorist quarantine measures. This appears to be a very weak area in the quarantine process. Bioterrorists activities come without warning. As such, stronger and more subtle interventions at protecting the public ought to be undertaken
References
Articles Critical Of Bird Flu Quarantine (2009) Efforts From Age Of Tyranny News
Centers for Disease Control (2013). Legal Authorities for Isolation and Quarantine. Retrieved on
August 5th 2013 from
http://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html
Eccles., R & Weber, R. ed. (2009). Common cold (Online-Ausg. ed.). Basel: Birkhäuser
Locy, T. (2003). Quarantine laws being updated. USA Today
Mariner, L. George J., & Glantz, L (2005). Jacobson v Massachusetts: It’s Not Your Great-
Great-Grandfather’s Public Health Law. Am J Public Health. 95(4): 581–590.
NCSL. (2010). State Quarantine and Isolation Statutes. Retreieved on August 18th, 2013 from
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/state-quarantine-and-isolation-statutes.aspx
Police Chief (2013). QUARANTINES: The Law Enforcement Role. Retrieved on
August 5th 2013 from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33201.pdf
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=807
Swendiman, K., & Elsea, J. (2007). CRS Report to Congress. Federal and State Quarantine
and Isolation Authority. Retrieved on August 5th 2013 from
Sehdev, P. (2002). The origin of quarantine. Clin. Infect. Dis. 35 (9); 1071–2
US Food and drug Administration (2013). Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (PL107-188), Letter from Center Direct. Retrieved on August 19, 2013th from http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/FoodDe
