Quarantine, Its Legal Process and Police Power

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Legal Rights
Steps to Quarantine
Legal Process
Staying at Home
Benefits
Police Power
Compliance
References

Legal Rights

The issue of issuing quarantine in a country where personal freedoms are highly regarded puts additional pressure on both state and local medical organizations. The CDC is allowed to detain and examine persons who are under suspicion of carrying dangerous communicable disease according to the laws of the Federal government, namely Title 42 Code of Federal Regulations (Barbisch, Koenig, & Shih, 2015). Furthermore, state authorities also have similar rights to quarantine individuals living in some regions. New York is one of the states, where quarantine can be imposed by the local department of health (Drazen et al., 2014). The authority of the CDC to quarantine people is given to it by the federal law.

Steps to Quarantine

To quarantine Brice, the officials working at the CDC can start by collecting information about the possible contagion of the individual. Then, they can issue a federal order that can be used even if the state’s laws do not feature similar guidelines. This step allows the CDC to officially protect the individual and other citizens from spreading the infection. The case is brought to the magistrate that determines the necessity of quarantine (Rothstein, 2015). If the magistrate agrees that the individual’s situation can endanger the health of others, this person may be forced to stay separated from society for a period no longer than 21 or 30 days. Brice has a right to seek legal counsel to represent his rights in the court. Moreover, he can insist on presenting contradictory evidence. However, he should prove that actions leading to quarantine were unjust.

Legal Process

Public health officials should present a solid case to the court, revealing the reasons of quarantine. Therefore, the contact of the individual in question and the person infected with or carrying the virus should be determined (Barbisch et al., 2015). The time, location, and onset of the situation should be discussed in the court to eliminate any possibility of misunderstanding. If the court finds gathered evidence sufficient, the individual is sent to his apartment or another place for easy patient monitoring. Moreover, a public health necessity should be identified for the issue – if the person does not pose any threat to the population. He or she does not have to be entirely restrained by the quarantine. Thus, the public health agency should also prove that quarantine is the best way and the least restrictive measure to help the patient and the community (Drazen et al., 2014). If the intervention proposed by the officials is too narrow or too broad, the court may not issue an order.

Staying at Home

By asking Brice to stay in his apartment, the CDC is following the general social distancing measures (Rothstein, 2015). A shelter in place can be established in a facility or house, where the individual has a limited level of exposure to other persons. Thus, as Brice lives alone in his apartment, it is reasonable to ask him to stay in his apartment without additional traveling and accommodation services necessary. Moreover, asking an individual to remain at home instead of using other facilities for better monitoring is in adherence to the humane services provided by the center (Rothstein, 2015). Additionally, placing Brice in jail would expose him to other traveling dangers and also greatly undermine his freedoms.

Benefits

Quarantine may have some societal benefits. First of all, people who are potentially infectious may spread the disease if they are not controlled. Therefore, quarantines may help reduce the rate of infected people and deal with an outbreak sooner than before. Second, quarantine may help medical professionals to study the condition during its possible incubation period and learn more about its treatment and management. Containing the infection and stopping the potential spreading of the disease is a significant benefit on its own. While some believe that these benefits may not be substantial, unregulated outbreaks may significantly damage the health of the population (Drazen et al., 2014).

Police Power

Police power is the capacity of the state to regulate some actions and behaviors of citizens in order to protect and maintain safety and health of the community (Rothstein, 2015). The purpose of these powers is to resolve significant problems that may endanger entire populations. In the US, this right of the state to create such policies comes from the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution which specifies that the states can use powers and rights not delegated to other governmental bodies (FindLaw, 2018). The protection of people’s welfare affects all citizens and also adheres to people’s right to safety and security. Other police powers can be justified in a similar way because they cover people’s behaviors that affect others and their well-being. For example, smoking does not impact one person but usually has adverse consequences for people who did not agree to inhale toxins. Therefore, a governmental policy power gives one an opportunity to protect the community’s health.

Compliance

The necessity for Brice to comply with the quarantine’s rules comes from his social nature as a human being. His ability to protect others and allow them to make their health choices is also a realization of his own personal freedoms and limitations. While it may be true that his personal independence may be restricted for a short period of time, he will be able to participate in the lives of his friends and family soon without the risk of exposing them to something potentially dangerous. One can appeal to the man’s empathy and understanding of the shared responsibility that Brice has as a citizen of the US.

References

Barbisch, D., Koenig, K. L., & Shih, F. Y. (2015). Is there a case for quarantine? Perspectives from SARS to Ebola. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 9(5), 547-553.

Drazen, J. M., Kanapathipillai, R., Campion, E. W., Rubin, E. J., Hammer, S. M., Morrissey, S., & Baden, L. R. (2014). Ebola and quarantine. The New England Journal of Medicine 2014(371), 2029-2030.

FindLaw. (2018). Tenth Amendment – U.S. Constitution. Web.

Rothstein, M. A. (2015). From SARS to Ebola: Legal and ethical considerations for modern quarantine. Indiana Health Law Review, 12, 227-280.

Click Here To Order Now!