[PragmaticPulp]

> Why is this treatment that can cost from $50,000-$500,000 something a person can be burdened with by court order?

The court order is that she must either take her treatment or isolate.

If she didn't/wouldn't/couldn't treat, she was not allowed to expose other people. That is the core issue. Note that she did start the treatment, but she refused to finish the course of treatment and refused to comply with necessary testing to ensure the case had been treated. I can't find any articles suggesting that she stopped because it was too expensive, though that is what most commenters are assuming.

Also, TB antibiotics don't cost $50K to $500K, at least for first-line treatment (the treatment she refused). The published treatment costs generally include multiple weeks of inpatient hospital treatment (for example: https://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/infographic/appendix.htm ). If someone had a case that fit this description, they wouldn't be wandering around in the world infecting others.

[jwestbury]

Regardless of this particular case, ordering someone with a disease to either pay to treat it or to isolate is surely the behavior of a dystopian state.

[HDThoreaun]

Allowing someone with tuberculosis to infect other people is the behavior of a dystopian state.