A philosophical thought: the individual versus society has been an eternal struggle. And even after centuries, there does not seem to be an adequate balance between the two. We value our freedoms, but we question how these very freedoms affect our community. Is it not a little oxymoronic to restrict freedom?
A little over a century ago, Aiken, South Carolina was asking the same thing. On August 19, 1909, the Supreme Court of South Carolina hosted the suit of Mary V. Kirk and H. H. Wyman and the Board of Health. Mary Kirk was afflicted with leprosy, which was thought to be a threatening contagion to the community. The Board of Health decidedly placed Kirk in compulsory isolation to hamper the spread of her infectious disease. Kirk refused to comply on the grounds that she had a non-contagious form of anaesthetic leprosy and was subject to isolation in an unhealthy environment. Consequently, the Board of Health adjusted their sentence to quarantine in the Aiken hospital. Stripped of her civil liberties, Kirk filed for injunction. After an appeal from the Board of Health, the courts still favored Kirk’s claims.
Individual freedom seemed to triumph in this case, as both isolation and quarantine were deemed inappropriate measures for Kirk, rooted in the concepts of what the two are. Isolation restricts the movement of and individual who has an infectious disease by separating the individual from those who are healthy. Isolation, in other words, is a restrictive measure for an individual who is already ill. Quarantine, though, is the restriction of the movement of an individual who has been exposed to an infectious disease and is susceptible to becoming infectious. Essentially, the difference between the two is that isolation is meant for separating the ill and quarantine separates the potentially ill; both, however, are meant as a preventative measure to protect the health of the population.
But, who decides when an individual must be placed in quarantine? This is where the controversy over the individual versus society comes into play. Typically, the governmental health departments are responsible for deciding when an individual should be placed in quarantine. The level of involvement can be categorized as federal, state, or local, but relies heavily on the severity of the infectious disease and outbreak. Protecting the health and welfare of the citizens is the primary objective of any governmental health agency. Yet, we question whether just having the knowledge and experience with the subject of infectious diseases legitimizes the government’s power over an individual. In cases in which an individual can compromise the health of an entire population, it seems logical that the society (or community) takes precedence over individual liberties.
When it comes to the question about superseding individual rights in favor of the community, there seems to be predestined conflict. In many ways, the health departments are most qualified to assess the need for quarantine, especially because of the amount of substantial research they have about infectious diseases. While it seems insensitive to make a decision for an individual, sometimes, it is important to consider the extent to which their illness can affect an entire community. Is it fair for any individual to suffer? No. But at the expense of infecting an entire population? This is when Public Health must take into account individual rights and communal rights. When an infectious disease is highly communicable, the individual must be quarantined as a protective method to prevent disease for a whole population. However, as was the case with Kirk, low-communicability does not justify an individual’s rights to be compromised by compulsory quarantine. Obviously, there is a very fine balance between the individual and their community.
A second philosophical thought: perhaps, as pessimistic as it may sound, the controversy between the individual rights and our communal rights may never be resolved. However, balancing the rights of both is just another task in the long list of Public Health to-dos.
Well done Kavya. You reasoned your way through this difficult and often contentious issue skillfully. Any two reasonable people can, and often do, disagree whenever the balance between the rights of an individual vs. community are discussed. I think we should always be careful not to infringe on our individual rights unless absolutely necessary. However, when deemed necessary, the health and well-being of a community must be assured, even at the expense of individual rights, especially if no viable alternatives exist. Of course, the issue is who decides the meaning or threshold of "necessary". I would hope that to be a group of elected individuals who are knowledgeable on the subject and representative of the community. Nice job this week!
ReplyDelete