I read about them both.  I can empathize with them, but it comes down to they can take precautions.  If they do not (which is the case here), they are basically committing assualt with a deadly weapon.  Just as someone that is wrecklessly firing a gun in a crowded city.  It may not be as fast as a bullet - but the outcome is the same.

Just because it isn't new, does that make it right?

Also, not everyone with AIDS is angrily going around attempting to take as many people with them as they can but because a small handful do, the privacy of all should be risked? Tracking them by numbers assured patients some confidentiality. Some people fear that people will no long get tested for HIV or AIDS because they do not want people finding out.

And I agree, Doc, that they could harm others, but I think there is a difference between having an illness and firing a gun. Do they really deserve to be locked in prison? No tv, no phones, no visitors? He doesn't even get to shower.

Also, and this is the biggest problem I have with it, he has NOT been charged with a crime. The fifth amendment states: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" where is his due process?

what your friend has is dangerous and deadly, the reason it is resistant is because he got it from someone who did not follow the prescribed regiment and passed it on to your friend who is not willing to follow the prescribed regiment. How many people need to die before it is ok to follow the constitution?



Sorry but that small number as you call it is not that small. The one person patient zero got as many as a million people infected because of his desire to take as many people with him as he could. If you have an illness that is contagious by sex which is not easy to transmit got a bunch of people killed. TB is easily transmitted all you need to do is be in the same room with the person to get infected. You don't need to have sex with the person, you don't need to shake hands, kiss, hug, or even talk to the person to become infected with TB. It grows slowly and if untreated will kill you in a very painful way lasting years. It makes you wish you had Aids or cancer. You think that it is ok to have this person walking the streets? I understand how this works because my girlfriend is a nurse who is feeding me the information as I type. How many people will potentially become infected just by walking behind him as he coughs and hacks his way down the street?



There was due process just not a criminal process. The civil process is just like the Baker act. One medical professional tells a judge the person is a danger to himself and others and the judge agrees the person is locked up. Due process is served. Until the man is cured or dies he stays locked up.

There has been no trail. He has not been given due process of the law. He is in prison, but has had no charges filed. Tell me again how this doesn't violate his constitutional rights? Just because you commit a crime doesn't mean you automatically go to jail. You get a trial with a jury of your peers. He hasn't even been charged. He should not be in a jail cell with his personal liberty taken from him without due process of the law.

Also, the title is not misleading. This one person is not the only person to be confined because he is sick:

And, LW, the passage you quoted he states "No one told me how TB works and stuff" so that does imply that he was not given ample opportunity to follow protocol. Also, the article also states that people will be locked up if

Now, this individual chose not to follow doctors orders. However, you could also be put in jail for lacking the ability to follow a doctor's orders. There is also no indication that he was given ample opportunity to comply with anything. I'm not saying he didn't, but you can't say that he did unless you have further information. I saw no information about warnings given to the man, no citations, nothing that implied that he went to the doctor, didn't do what the doctor said, went in public and was arrested. Hell, I ignored my doctor when he said I shouldn't go to class with the flu, but I went anyway. My actions could have killed an individual that I infected. Does that mean I should go to jail? I knowingly endangered the health and lives of others.


And while I would not like to sit next to him on a bus, that is true, I also do not want to be locked up because I innocently contracted a disease that there is no cure for. Especially not, (as you may realize I'm stressing here) due process of the law.

He should, as I said before, be given due process. And a radio for that matter. I really don't understand why he is deprived of so much especially when, in legal terms, he is NOT a criminal.

Also, attempted murder implies that the person has specific intention to kill. It doesn't sound as if the man with TB was attempting to kill anyone. The AIDS patient mentioned earlier, yes. The TB patient, nope. It is difficult to fully argue the point since we obviously don't have all the facts, but nothing about his interview implied that he was fully aware of the transmission, affects of, or potential harm of TB. He says, at the end of the article, that he understands now that he put the public at risk. Now he is getting treatment for something that could kill him. Doesn't it follow that he may not have been fully aware of the dangers if he refused treatment for something that could be cured but left untreated would be fatal? Perhaps I'm inserting too much of my own mentality in there, but it does make sense.

It is a good question but not the way it works. This is civil law. Let me explain how this works and I agree it sounds unfair but it is the law. Civil law requires different rules than criminal law. If a person is a threat to himself and or the general population and or another human being because of a contagious medical illness. That person is represented by a lawyer in front of a judge. The judge agrees and signs the order locking him up. It is a health issue not a criminal issue. As long as he is a danger to society and himself he must be held. It is like contempt of court order. The Judge can have you arrested and jailed for not following his order until he sees fit or 18 months whichever comes first. For medical issues the hospital can restrain you if you prove to be a danger to yourself or others and all they need is documentation of the facts that lead up to the restraints. If the person is conscious they can not force him to take his medication but they are responsible to the public so they can’t let him go until cured but they can’t take away his freedom without a court order. Once he has refused to take his medication they can throw it to a judge and the person can be locked up. Due process is served. Just because he did not know all about that TB stuff is meaningless. He was given informed consent and refused to obey. You don’t get a second chance to kill people.

But, he should be released if he complies with the rules. I see no reason not to.

I agree.  IF

We can hope he has learned now.  And that he can be freed. IF

While more information would be nice, every article I've read states:



That, to me, means he was told EXPLICITLY to wear the mask and decided not to--I'd imagine endangering the public health is a crime.

Also--the article I read said he was from Russia and he got TB there--he came to the US for treatment. I would imagine that he had to lie on his visa because communicable diseases are a reason for not getting the visa granted. Lying on your visa is most certainly a crime.

Frankly, I'm surprised he hasn't just been deported.

I suppose I should specify that I don't think he should walk around willy nilly and infect hundreds or thousands of people. My problem with this situation is that he is being held in jail, denied things that I think every human should be allowed -- mostly the shower, but the other stuff is only fair as well, and he isn't a criminal!

Also, I worry about setting precedents. If it is so easy to jail a person without a criminal trial, I worry what could be next. I'm not going to use slippery slope style of rhetoric here and give far fetched scenarios that would rival 1984, but I think we should all be aware of setting precedents that limit individual rights.

And, one last thing: IF (and I agree that it is contingent on IF) he has learned the effects of TB, and if he isn't lying in the article, he seemed unaware of the danger he previously posed and has learned better since, then I see no reason to keep him locked up. True, I don't see a reason he should be locked up and not simply confined, but he should be granted his liberty if 1. he's taking his meds and 2. he wears the mask as long as necessary.

I agree that we must take measures to protect against epidemics or pandemics, especially that we have created super viruses that are becoming increasingly hard to kill. My problem is the manner in which this has happened, and the treatment of the individual.

Unfortunately, there aren't enough specifics to fully argue the point. However, I feel fairly sure that it's ok to say someone should not be in jail without being a criminal.

I'm very aware how TB works, though thank you for listing telling us all. The man in question, however, *seems* to have been ignorant of just how much damage he could have been doing. Since we don't know how much he knew, or how often he was warned, I can't say if he refused treatment, or just couldn't afford it. It is possible, since he lost his job, that he could not afford the treatment, and that is why he was refusing it. I assume that these treatments are pricey. As for not wearing a mask... well, if he was truly ignorant, then there are many possibilities for not wanting to wear a mask.

Again, my problem is that he is in prison and being denied privileges as though he were a criminal when no criminal charges have been filed. He should be in a treatment facility, but he's not. He's in jail.

Also, even if you're going to lock someone up under civil law, don't you still have to have a trial or at least a hearing with a judge? (This is a general question.)

I'm very aware how TB works, though thank you for listing telling us all. The man in question, however, *seems* to have been ignorant of just how much damage he could have been doing. Since we don't know how much he knew, or how often he was warned, I can't say if he refused treatment, or just couldn't afford it. It is possible, since he lost his job, that he could not afford the treatment, and that is why he was refusing it. I assume that these treatments are pricey. As for not wearing a mask... well, if he was truly ignorant, then there are many possibilities for not wanting to wear a mask.

I'm not sure about other states, but I know that in my state.. the health department must ensure that you receive treatment. It's not just a cost issue. If you can't afford it, they make sure you get it. He could be placed in jail pending a hearing.. kids get removed from their homes all the time without a judges hearing.. because the environment may be a risk to the child. Perhaps this falls under the same heading. I'll talk to my friend (who actually has to track down syphilis people.. not an easy job) and find out what their policies are on it and get back to you.

Actually, those removals without a judge's order are unConstitutional a large percentage of the time (read: not ALL the time, but a good chunk of it), but the parents don't have the legal muscle to fight it.

Correct! He will have a Civil record. As I stated before civil law is much different than criminal law. Like when your house if forclosed upon you have a judgement against you that lasts for a decade or more, but no criminal charges filed.



You mean lack of criminal charges? If a medical authority states he is a danger to himself or others the judge has the authority to lock his silly butt up until the judge feels like letting him go or 18 months which ever comes first.



This is considdered a medical emergency when a person with a contagious illness does not follow proper medical protocol. To stop an epidemic the health department has the authority to confine any and all infected people. This person could start an epidemic all by himself. don't you think that it is wise to lock him up? In Florida it is called the Baker Act. Each state has a similar law and there is a federal law as well.

In Florida the patient has to agree to treatment to stay in the hospital or treatment center. If the patient refuses treatment then he has to stay somewhere, jail is the only other place to go.



You get a hearing, you don't have to be there for the hearing. The judge can appoint your lawyer give him five minutes to review the case file and then have a hearing. You get told what happened later. this is true in criminal and civil law. even if you go to trial you can be tried in criminal court and you don't even have to be in the country. but you had a hearing and a trial according to the law it was fair.



I was not one of those people. He could have religious reasons not to wear the mask or take medicine, it would not matter. The man could not be allowed to walk the streets spreading illness with each breath.