Bill allows cops warrantless entry, detention

[ilbob]

This is a terrible idea.

In the event a pandemic were to come about that required such actions, it would not be all that hard for judges to issue warrants to deal with the problem. if there was no time for judges to be involved, it is something that is happening so fast nothing is going to be helpful in any case.

What the law should do is define waht the limits of government power are in such cases, and how that power is to exercised.

 

[jgcoastie]

So if someone is firing wildly into a school would you say don't stop him until after the grand jury comes back with an indictment or the police get a court order for him to stop? Wait for due process?

emphasis added

If they allowed school staff to carry (concealed or openly, I don't care which), then that wouldn't be much of a concern anyway would it?

 

[sholling]

If they allowed school staff to carry (concealed or openly, I don't care which), then that wouldn't be much of a concern anyway would it?

So you're saying we should just shoot anyone that sneezes in our presence?

 

[Rangefinder]

From everything I've read, they "expect" this year's virus to be a bigger, badder, harder-hitting mutation of last year. AND, they're planning to have millions of vaccinations ready for it. Really? How's that? I'm not a doctor, and I don't even play one on tv. But, if my understanding of the matter is even close... First--you need the virus itself in its current mutated form. THEN---you need someone it currently infects in that form. THEN---you need to isolate the antibodies they are naturally producing to fight it. THEN---you need to grow them synthetically. After all that, you might have an effective vaccine for the virus. So how is it they're already preparing for it? I don't buy thier BS for a second. By all accounts I've read, thier vaccine could potentially be more dangerous than the virus itself. Come at me with a needle-full for this crap, I'm gonna call it assult with a deadly weapon and react accordingly---end of story.

 

[sholling]

BTW most states have a provision in the law to temporary hold for observation anyone doctor or an officer believes to have a mental or emotional problem that may make them a threat to themselves or others. In California it's called a 5150 hold. Usually the hold is 72 hours or less unless extended by a judge. Within 72 hours the government must make a case to a court (due process) for a longer hold or release the person. I don't see allowing a doctor to do the same for a serious communicable disease to be an infringement of due process.

 

[OuTcAsT]

BTW most states have a provision in the law to temporary hold for observation anyone doctor or an officer believes to have a mental or emotional problem that may make them a threat to themselves or others. In California it's called a 5150 hold. Usually the hold is 72 hours or less unless extended by a judge. Within 72 hours the government must make a case to a court (due process) for a longer hold or release the person. I don't see allowing a doctor to do the same for a serious communicable disease to be an infringement of due process.

There is a huge difference between the two. Typically a hold for mental health evaluation requires some largely unambiguous signs or symptoms, therein lies the problem. You keep referring to a "serious communicable disease" yet you fail to see how difficult it would be to come up with a subset of symptoms that could be relied upon to determine if the person does have some exotic disease, versus the most widely spread set of viruses known to man: The common "cold".

What exact symptoms would have to be present for someone to be "quarantined" ? or compelled to submit to treatment? How many "communicable diseases" share symptoms with otherwise benign ailments?

Consider your answer carefully, because what you suggest could have you quarantined, or forced to take a treatment for a specific disease, when you merely have a hay fever flare-up, or a simple "cold".

Sorry, but the end does not justify the means, and I don't want "compulsory" health care any more than I want federalized health care, and I certainly do not want to run the risk of being institutionalized every time I sneeze.

 

[azredhawk44]

So if someone is firing wildly into a school would you say don't stop him until after the grand jury comes back with an indictment or the police get a court order for him to stop? Wait for due process?

Ridiculous argument. Firing wildly into a school is not on parity with having the flu, any flu, even a superninja H1N1 flu.

You also have officers witnessing the event in situ which gives them more than enough latitude to interdict in the home and stop the shooter. Warrants aren't necessary to halt the projection of lethal force from the distance of the remote home to the school... probably at least 75 yards.

If someone is sick and isolates themselves that's a good thing and in most cases should be left alone. However if someone has a deadly and easily communicable disease and insists on spreading it then they are at least as deadly as the nut taking target practice at a school because each person that they infect will infect others and so on and so on.

Wrong again. Bullets are projected force with lethal range measuring in miles. Each bullet has the power to kill.

"Deadly" disease? The lethality of disease is a function of many things, foremost of which are the cleanliness and health of the potential host to the disease. Diseases are very deadly to adult-onset diabetic obese people that live off of twinkies and the McDonalds menu. They tend to be merely an annoyance to people that eat their vegetables and wash their hands a couple times a day.

Remember that the mortality rate of this disease is below 0.5% in western countries. Filthy, nasty India has a mortality rate for H1N1 at 2.5%.

In my opinion anyone with a deadly communicable disease should be isolated immediately and if the isolation is involuntary then a court hearing should be held within 3 business days to order the infected person isolated until safe.

However the current flu does not fall into that category.

Depends on what you define as "deadly." AIDS is deadly. SARS is deadly. Mumps/measles/chickenpox can be deadly. Syphilis can be deadly.

H1N1 is a joke. A sick, twisted power-grabbing joke.

I'm glad that you agree that it doesn't fall into the same category as a true pandemic like the Bubonic Plague (mortality rate from 50% to 90% when not treated with antibiotics).

 

[johnbt]

"a reenactment of the Spanish flu of 1918"

My grandfather had it. He told me it wasn't all that bad. Back then, pretty much anything would kill a lot of people because there wasn't a treatment for most common illnesses.

Penicillin wasn't even discovered until 1930, much less commonly used.

John

 

[Mello2u]

At least the law hs this provision:
"An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccination or treatment shall not be
410 required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96
411 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health or results in
412 uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that
413 poses a serious danger to public health, as determined by the commissioner, or a local public
414 health authority operating within its jurisdiction."

From what I've read of the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, it seems to have had two waves. The first wave mild and the second wave deadly. As a previous poster mentioned many died not from the flu but from a secondary infection such as a pneumonia which can be treated today. The mortality rate of those actually infected ranged between 10% to 20% from all causes.

If the mortality rate is cut by use of anti-viral medications for the primary infection and use of antibiotic treating secondary infections; the mortality rate should be well below 10% of those infected. In the 1918 pandemic about 1/3 of the population was infected.

Extrapolating to a population of 350,000,000 in the U.S. that could mean more than 10,000,000 deaths.

 

[jgcoastie]

Sholling

So you're saying we should just shoot anyone that sneezes in our presence?

??? I'm not sure how in the world you derived that from what I said, but to answer your question: no.

I'm really confused about how I supposedly implied this...

For reference, here is my post in its entirety.

You said:

So if someone is firing wildly into a school would you say don't stop him until after the grand jury comes back with an indictment or the police get a court order for him to stop? Wait for due process?

emphasis added

I said:

If they allowed school staff to carry (concealed or openly, I don't care which), then that wouldn't be much of a concern anyway would it?

Enlighten me please...

 

[roy reali]

Why Worry?

Why should anyone be worried about the Federal Government. There are many examples of things they have run with a high degree of success. When I think of one I'll post it.

Remember when Reagan asked what are the ten scariest words in the English language?

I'm from the federal governemnt and I'm here to help.

 

[sholling]

I'm not sure how in the world you derived that from what I said, but to answer your question: no.

I equated allowing someone with a deadly communicable disease to spread it at will to allowing someone to fire into a school. You responded that the teachers could kill the shooter. My question was if you advocate killing a shooter that's a threat to the lives of hundreds do you also advocate killing someone that's a threat to tens of thousands?

BTW I don't for a minute believe that H1N1 is a major threat. On the other hand if someone like Iran were to release a true bio engineered killer plague I would want the government taking action NOW and stopping the spread of infection in its tracks. And I don't want them to wait 6 month after it happens while congress debates giving them the power.

 

[jgcoastie]

My question was if you advocate killing a shooter that's a threat to the lives of hundreds do you also advocate killing someone that's a threat to tens of thousands?

I think that's an unrealistic question, but to indulge you...

No I do not advocate killing someone that may or may not have a disease/virus that may or may not infect others. Since I nor you are the persons doctor, the level of their infection is not for us to know.

An active shooter in a school is an immediate threat to the safety of everyone in the vicinity. Someone with a serious disease/virus can be treated, as can everyone they infect. We have some of the most advanced medical technicians in the world, I think we can come to a reasonable solution. Something to the effect of a vaccine, antibiotic, etc. to resolve it, I don't think we'll have to resort to fast-moving lead pills for our medical issues.

Didn't think I'd ever have to clarify that particular issue, but oh well.

 

[ADB]

I think all the handwringing and hyperbole should be toned down. There are already laws in place that allow for someone to be quarantined if it's suspected that they have a dangerous disease. That's no more an imposition on the person's constitutional rights than it is for you to be arrested if they think that you may be a serial killer.

And second, I don't worry about swine flu. Mostly because I remember the panic over bird flu. And before that, SARS. And before that, West Nile Virus. We've gotten really good at containing infectious diseases, and creating effective vaccines fast. A lot of the trumpeting of these things has to do with the media looking for a way to keep people watching, and various research agencies looking for a way to keep their funds flowing.

 

[sholling]

Since I nor you are the persons doctor, the level of their infection is not for us to know.

As always I respect your view. Here's why I have mine illustrated with three scenarios. If you look at HIV tens of thousands have died because the original carrier was allowed to go free. Now it's too late to take such action but when there was only one carrier in the US it was criminal to allow him to infect others. I have no clue what the answer should have been. Lock him away for the 3-4 years he lived? Tattoo "deadly STD infection" on his belt line and let him go? Just let him go do what he did which was hit every sex club and bath house he had the energy to visit before he died? I don't know the answer but he deliberately became a bio agent serial killer after his release.

But let's look at what concerns me more. If Iran, and they have the technology, were to release a modern bio engineered and very deadly plague there would be no time to develop vaccines and you can count on it being antibiotic proof. If it achieved a 10% fatality rate that's 35,000,000 Americans. 3% is 10,000,000. Is it worth locking up the those infected first if it has a chance to stop the spread? Just for a couple of weeks until they are over it? This isn't a TEOTWAWKI scenario but a real possibility for terrorism because it's untraceable.

Ok let's leave that one aside. A tourist returns from Africa. Within 24hrs of getting home his wife takes him to the family doctor who being from Africa suspects Ebola. Ebola is transmitted by touch, is roughly 90% fatal, and as a virus is immune to antibiotics. Do you send him home if he refuses hospitalization or forcefully isolate him? How about those he came in contact with? If infected they will be contagious within days. Do you let them go to work and little league games with their kids? Or do you isolate them for testing? Remember the spread isn't linear its logarithmic.

My point is that this isn't 1930 when by the time someone with a disease could get here they would be displaying symptoms. In 2009 you can fly from Africa in a day and be home well before symptoms appear. Symptoms that previously would have stopped you could at customs.

I don't want the government to be able to lock up someone with the flu but if someone is carrying an incurable disease with a high probability of fatality yes. But they should be allowed due process and a judge decide if they pose a threat just like a mental health hold. Set the bar very very high but it has to exist.

 

[divemedic]

Guys- this is a paranoid non-issue. As a paramedic, I already have the power which you are all putting on your tinfoil hats for. There are quite a few situations where I can detain you or take people into the hospital against their will, and that isn't just limited to suicidal ideations. I can use reasonable force, I can sedate them, I can tie them down. It is done routinely. Calm down, this is a non-issue.

 

[orangello]

^^^ Strangely, i didn't find the "tie them down" part very comforting. (makes another note about thinking it over before calling 9-1-1)

 

[OuTcAsT]

As a paramedic, I already have the power which you are all putting on your tinfoil hats for. There are quite a few situations where I can detain you or take people into the hospital against their will, and that isn't just limited to suicidal ideations. I can use reasonable force, I can sedate them, I can tie them down. It is done routinely.

Really? Those "powers" do not exist in my State, please elaborate, in which state are you licensed? Are you attached to a public service organization (LE) or simply an EMA?

In TN. a patient has a right to refuse treatment under all but the narrowest of circumstances (IE: Suicidal, dementia, drug or alcohol abuse) and even then LE has to make the call, and bear the responsibilities. not to derail the thread, just curious as to what State already allows such latitude.

 

[divemedic]

Actually, that is a common misconception. The law states (in every state) that you have the right to refuse care if (and only if) you are mentally competent to understand the refusal and the consequences that follow. There are many situations where a patient is not capable of an "informed refusal," these include:

1 Intoxication (drug or alcohol)
2 The patient is a minor (and no competent legal guardian or parent is available to give or refuse consent)
3 Head injuries
4 suicidal ideation
5 hypoglycemia
6 any other situation or condition which affects you ability to understand the medical ramifications of refusing care

Generally, Law Enforcement only makes the decision in suicide cases. A patient who lacks capacity to make or understand health care decisions cannot give consent or refuse, and the courts (again in every state of which I am aware) not only allow, but require the paramedic to decide in favor of caring for the patient. This is referred to as "implied consent" and is put in place to protect the rights of the patient.

This is an area of law that has long been debated and litigated. I have known many a medic to get in trouble for under treatment, but I have not yet met a medic who got in hot water for overtreatment.

Example: You are involved in a fall. You are angry and combative that the ambulance was called, and wish to refuse treatment. The Paramedic who arrives determines that you have altered mental status due to alcohol, or a bump on the head, or some other mechanism, so under the law, he has the power to take you to the hospital, and may use reasonable force to do so. That can include chemical restraint, or even physical restraints.

This is nothing to be paranoid about. It isn't as if medics run around looking for reasons to take you to the hospital. This is the law in Tennessee as well as everywhere else. Although centered around doctors, you can read a short article on the subject here. The same general principle applies to paramedics engaged in the prehospital setting.

 

[orangello]

This whole thread is a rehash of the "government as my mommy" argument, just in a different area of control/choice (usually "mommy can i buy a gun?"). I don't need my mommy to tell me when to go to the doctor or get an immunization; i am a grown man. I certainly don't need a paramedic, a Congressman, or the President of the U.S. to tell me when to seek medical care (unless dear old Mom gets elected ).
Big Government < Limited Government, IMO.