[Maursault]

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

Though the US talks a good game about rights and freedoms, LEO and courts do not respect the Bill of Rights, nor is there ever any consequences for them for illegal searches, illegal interrogations nor coerced confessions. In this case, the 8th Amendment should protect her from this burden quite obviously as "excessive fines," but these rights really don't exist, nor is it possible for any court in the US to find a defendant, "innocent."

Most state law, at least, once accused, it simply is not possible to be acquitted, making nearly all trials a sham. The prosecutor, not any judge, as Robert Jackson said, "has more control over life, liberty, and reputation, than any other person in America." They don't care about justice, they only care about their conviction record. They will never agree to consider exculpatory evidence. It is only a matter of whether they think they can win, such that they will happily and readily convict the innocent if they can, and will avoid prosecuting the guilty if they have any doubt they could not.

Individuals that never had the misfortune of being charged with a crime and attempted a defense in court could never understand, and they also, as a rule, have a strong bias towards accused being guilty, even prior to conviction, even if there is no evidence of crime. There is a reason most cases end before there is any ruling... they usually end as plea deals. There is no presumption of innocence in US courts. All that is needed for a conviction is an ambitious prosecutor to slander the accused with absolute bullshit fantasy.

The ability of a prosecutor to seat and manipulate a Grand Jury, even to indict a ham sandwich if that's what they wanted, is the source of their power, which is nearly absolute, and that power is the source of their corruption. There are very few with that power that have resisted its corruption and are not obsessed with their ambition to win at any cost over the platitude of justice being served. We have to assume Associate Justice Robert Jackson was one. I think probably Kenneth Star and Merrick Garland, also. I would have insisted John Roberts was also among them until he saw the opportunity to overturn Roe with an illegitimately weighted conservative Court, and despicably did so, and young women will bear the consequences with their very lives, not him.

[naikrovek]

think a bit more before you reply, please. or maybe read a bit closer and get the details before you type out a 500 word essay on why the justice system is broken.

the court order is to get treatment according to doctors instructions, OR isolate.

isolation costs nothing.

what is worrying to me is that A) you just had this entire wall of text ready to go, it seems, waiting for somewhere to put it, and B) what the hell kind of a society do we live in where the society doesn't take care of its citizens, and how the hell do we view this as normal in the US?

in this case, it doesn't matter. she's got TB and doesn't want treatment for whatever reason. so you sit your ass down and you don't leave the house until you either die, miraculously are cured, or you change your mind about treatment.

[Maursault]

Maybe you want to rethink your argument as something better than a string of ad hominem attacks. I'll give you a massive hint: any time you focus on the person, you are committing a fallacy and your reasoning is invalid and unsound. All that matters is what was said, not who was saying what. You're welcome to disagree with me, but you can only rationally argue such by speaking to the argument, not the man.

The 8th Amendment reads, Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The issue here is that defense is expensive, which means it necessarily discriminates against anyone that can not afford $50K in attorneys fees, just for starters, so to protect one's 8th Amendment rights against excessive fines often costs more than the excessive fine itself.

[naikrovek]

there's no fine! all she has to do is stay home and wait to die.

why would she even want to be around other people, when she knows she has an extremely serious and contagious disease?

she is a literal menace to society and that all but voids her individual rights to freedom from fines, punishment, or excessive bail. she had her chance to play according to the rules. she chose not to. now she must pay the penalties. if she infected anyone and they die from it, she must be treated, against her will or not, and then put in prison for an appropriate amount of time.

you can't go around infecting others with tuberculosis and expect to keep your rights, no matter what "excessive" means to you. court opinion is valid and one does not get to say that legal precedent on interpretation of the bill of rights is invalid because you personally disagree with it.

how's that? please think more. not everything is an attack against you.

[jrmg]

What’s a solution to (or, I guess, outcome of) someone refusing to get treatment or isolate with a highly infectious disease that conforms to your ideology?

[Maursault]

> She noted that the cost of treating drug-resistant TB can run $100,000 or more.

My ideology is to not violate the patient's 5th and 8th Amendment rights. The government can pay for the treatment in the interests of public health rather than discriminate against her because she can't afford it. Though you wouldn't know it, being poor isn't a crime.

[jrmg]

Sorry, I assumed from your other responses that you were not okay with enforced treatment. Given how focused you were on the government not infringing rights, and how you were explicitly against enforcing isolation, I guess I assumed that carried over to not allowing the government to enforce medical treatment (even if it was free).

I’m still unclear what you think should be done in this concrete case. I see a few options here:

- Don’t enforce anything, allow the person to spread TB unrestricted.

- Enforce isolation until death or recovery.

- Enforce treatment until death or recovery (note though that if you were not to enforce isolation during treatment you’re allowing TB to spread during this time!)

- Something else?

Forgetting for a moment about payment, It sounds like you would be in favor of the third option?

We can also discuss who should pay for the latter two (and I know the answer to that is not an isolated question - they go together). I would agree it should be the government - though I’m also for government-provided, taxpayer funded healthcare generally, which I suspect you are not - and would possibly consider its imposition as unconstitutional?

[naikrovek]

he has no answer. dude is myopic.

[locustous]

> isolation costs nothing.

Seems to me that indeterminate isolation is a much steeper cost than mere money.

> so you sit your ass down and you don't leave the house until you either die, miraculously are cured, or you change your mind about treatment.

This is the pavement of the road to totalitarianism.

What if the doctors are just... wrong?

[Maursault]

> Seems to me that indeterminate isolation is a much steeper cost than mere money.

I think you are correct, and that GP's solution violates the suspect's right of due process under the 5th Amendment, which is the source of an individual's right to freely travel within the borders of the US. Commonly known as the "travel right," it entails privacy and free domestic movement without governmental abridgment.

[naikrovek]

you do not get to travel free while carrying tuberculosis, and while turning down treatment.

her rights do not extend to the point where she has the right to infect others with tuberculosis. common cold, sure, fine, it isn't especially dangerous. tuberculosis IS especially dangerous.

her rights extend to the point where she impedes the rights of others, and no further. this means she can't walk around and spread tuberculosis because of "travel right". travel right is not applicable in certain situations and her situation is one of them.

people do not have unabridgable rights. if you kill someone, and you are found guilty, you lose a lot of rights, including travel right. are you arguing that the 5th amendment applies to everyone, no matter what? that the 2nd amendment applies to everyone, no matter what? you violate the freedoms of others, you get your rights taken away. that's what judicial punishments are.

if you are saying that you can go into a school and kill everyone then walk out and continue to exist freely with your 2nd and 5th amendment rights intact, you may be a sociopath. if you are not saying that, then state what you are saying more clearly, because it sounds like you want complete freedom for people who have tuberculosis and refuse treatment.

spreading tuberculosis is potentially no different than shooting a bunch of people. it's just as lethal, but over a longer period. so if you're saying that she should be allowed to spread tuberculosis wherever she wants, and never be confined because of that, then it sounds like you think you're free to do anything you want to others without any changes to your own freedoms.

if I'm wrong, please explain how I'm wrong.

[locustous]

> if I'm wrong, please explain how I'm wrong.

Motive matters. There is a world of difference between intentionally trying to infect others and doing your best to not infect while still using the right to travel.

A distinction you have failed to acknowledge at all in your narrative. You simply assume guilt and appear to have no real conceptual understanding of justice, guilt, fault and appropriate punishments.

This individual has needs and rights that must be upheld as well.

The ends justify the means is a terrible philosophy that, if pursued, ends in sorrow. Another way to describe it is the many out weigh the few. It is the pavement of the road leading to pretty much every totalitarian government in history.

Finally, every day activities entail a certain amount of risk. Car accidents, disease, pests. You assume these risks to participate in public and they cannot be eliminated. Reasonable efforts to reduce them is fine, but there is a growing mentality that any risk you impose on others is unacceptable and this is an untenable position. You can't reasonably zero out risk.

[naikrovek]

> This is the pavement of the road to totalitarianism.

no, it isn't. telling someone that they are not allowed to freely spread a lethal disease is the exact same as telling someone that they can't freely assault anyone they choose.

> What if the doctors are just... wrong?

all of them? over time? all of whom have reached false positive diagnoses for tuberculosis, for which there are good, reliable tests?

unlikely to the point of virtual impossibility. winning the lottery while being bitten by a shark is probably more likely.

[marcus0x62]

> isolation costs nothing

Isolation, absent treatment, for TB will cost you your life. Untreated TB will kill you.