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?
> 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.
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?
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.