[userbinator]

There's an interesting parallel of this with some of the discussions on (computer) security - if someone's machine is part of a botnet, infected with malware, or possibly running insecure software, does it give us the right to "invade" them and forcibly perform actions which we believe are "for their own good"?

The prevailing attitude there seems to be "yes", but the difference is that in those cases the worst that could happen is people lose money, data and maybe their personal information gets leaked; whereas here, with Ebola, people will actually die. Not that I'm advocating either side of the argument, but it's something to think about...