Do people have, categorically, the moral right not to be quarantined?

Do people have, categorically, the moral right not to be quarantined?

  • YES, I have the right to never be quarantined against my will

  • NO, in certain circumstances the govt may rightly quarantine me.


Results are only viewable after voting.

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟186,371.00
Marital Status
Private
The time youve lost in quarantine is gone, permanently.

Its not like they give it back to you when you emerge.
That is true, but at least it is reversable - you can eventually be free of the quarantine, but you can never be free of the vaccination.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Do people have, categorically, the moral right NOT to be quarantined*? Why or why not?

People have the moral right to due process. If they are given due process, and it is found that they should be put under quarantined, then their rights have been protected.

It is no different than putting someone in jail for a crime. Time in jail is meant to protect the larger society from the harm that one person could do. It is thought that by the end of the jail time, the end of the quarantine, that this person will be less of a threat.
 
Upvote 0

selfinflikted

Under Deck
Jul 13, 2006
11,441
786
44
✟24,014.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
People have the moral right to due process. If they are given due process, and it is found that they should be put under quarantined, then their rights have been protected.

It is no different than putting someone in jail for a crime. Time in jail is meant to protect the larger society from the harm that one person could do. It is thought that by the end of the jail time, the end of the quarantine, that this person will be less of a threat.

Agree. :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,411
15,559
Colorado
✟427,916.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
People have the moral right to due process. If they are given due process, and it is found that they should be put under quarantined, then their rights have been protected.

It is no different than putting someone in jail for a crime. Time in jail is meant to protect the larger society from the harm that one person could do. It is thought that by the end of the jail time, the end of the quarantine, that this person will be less of a threat.
Its VERY different from jail time which is, among other things, the denial of rights as punishment for crime.

Jail means your right to free speech, association, and others, are curtailed.

With quarantine, youve broken no law, committed no crime, yet the govt denies you certain rights enumerated in the US constitution.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Its VERY different from jail time which is, among other things, the denial of rights as punishment for crime.

Jail means your right to free speech, association, and others, are curtailed.

With quarantine, youve broken no law, committed no crime, yet the govt denies you certain rights enumerated in the US constitution.

It really comes down to one thing;

If there is a clear public health danger posed to society, should society be protected from those who refuse to be vaccinated?

The supreme court, has generally upheld, that one's rights end, when they are putting others at risk and or are infringing on the rights of others.

If things got bad enough, there is no question in my mind, the higher court would uphold protecting society from harm.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ada Lovelace

Grateful to scientists and all health care workers
Supporter
Jun 20, 2014
5,316
9,297
California
✟1,002,256.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I don't feel like there's an unequivocal yes or no answer to this because it's so dependent upon the variables. If a person has been diagnosed with an immensely contagious and deadly disease like ebola, or there's a strong probability that he / she has been exposed to it, then I think you have to consider not just that person's rights but the rights of everyone else in society. We're all interconnected. A virus can be like an invisible, soundless viral bomb strapped to the person. On the other hand, I think there needs to be fair consideration for the impact a quarantine has on the individual and his or her family.

I live in Los Angeles where we've been affected this year by the measles and in the recent past by pertussis outbreaks. My boyfriend's former baseball coach had the measles, but the majority of others I personally know who were either diagnosed with it or exposed to it and are unvaccinated or immunocompromised are minors. The Health Department gave them and their parents detailed instructions on how to self-quarantine but is not militant. There wasn't a police car sitting outside their door waiting to arrest them if they dared to go outside. It is a misdemeanor here to violate quarantine orders, though. The ones who most stringently enforce their isolation protocols are schools, dance studios, equestrian centers, and the like where kids who were / are under quarantine are not permitted to be in attendance. There's a magnet school for the performing arts that is on the campus of Huntington Beach High School, and many of my friends from dance go there, few were impacted by the school board-mandated quarantine that was issued for all those who are unvaccinated or immunocompromised after a sophomore was diagnosed with the measles in January. For the three week infectious period the students could not be on campus for school, athletic practices, club meetings, or anything else, and also were prohibited from attending any off-campus events and activities. A dance studio had initially been reluctant to take firm action but finally did after a student there was diagnosed with the measles. All kids who were unvaccinated or immunocompromised were asked to refrain from attending the studio. They were reliant upon parents' cooperation since they did not know the vaccination status of each dancer.

Parents can obtain personal belief and religious exemptions from the required immunizations, but most schools stipulate that they will agree to quarantine their child if there is an outbreak. I have no idea how it works with public schools but the private schools I've attended require parents to submit a contract to reenroll their child for the next school year, and by doing so agree again to adhere to policies. There's a medical database and parents have to keep it current for us. We have a specific protocol in place for contagious illnesses. The thing that sucks is that most of the ones I know who've been impacted are teens who have developed belief systems of their own but are subjected to the quarantine and bans either because of decisions their parents made on their behalf to not vaccinate them, or because of a compromised immune system. They are not culpable for the choices that put them in that predicament. But nevertheless I think the quarantines are fair and reasonable, because the majority of the time (with unvaccinated kids) parents have consented to being in compliance with them even if the kids themselves have not given such consent. They protect both the school community and society at large, and have been effective at helping to minimize the destruction of the outbreaks. This was also the case with the whopping cough outbreaks that hit private school junior high students here back in 2011 and 2012. Most schools here use online education software platforms like Haiku Learning that enable students to virtually attend classes from home. At my school they set up a camera to record the class and then put the video online, and you can IM / email the teacher and others in your class. It's works pretty much like the actual online school where I take classes, except the classes aren't streamed live. It's not like quarantined kids are just completely missing out on their classes for that whole duration. I have no idea how it works for adults who are barred from their workplace and if they can telecommute.

The college I'll be attending in the fall has a far more rigorous process for being granted exemption from the vaccination requirements. Students who receive the exemption consent to a voluntary quarantine in the event of an outbreak. Again that's totally reasonable to me.

As for the government itself imposing a quarantine I think it's morally fair but the way it's managed should be sensible and proportional. Strong-armed action should only be taken if the person is willfully showing disregard for the quarantine and wantonly putting others in genuine imminent risk. The nurse who defied the ebola quarantine she was placed under by going for a bike ride on an empty street in a rural area wasn't posing the same level of risk as she would have been if she'd be at Grand Central Station during rush hour, or if she was actually symptomatic. I 100% support the hospitalized quarantine of people who have been diagnosed with ebola. If a person with a less serious but still potentially lethal disease like measles had been in adamant refusal to cooperate with self-regulated quarantine protocols, then forcing them into a hospitalized quarantine could be the morally responsible action. Again, I think the person should be in direct disregard of orders and posing a genuine threat before such an action for a lesser disease would be justifiable. An individual has liberties but they are not without limitations and have to be in compatibility with the liberties of others within the society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: parsley
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Its VERY different from jail time which is, among other things, the denial of rights as punishment for crime.

I showed how they are also similar in some respects.

I also showed that you do not have the right to never be confined against your will. The right that we do have is the right to due process. In accordance, there is a due process for determining if people can be quarantined, just as there is for establishing martial law.

With quarantine, youve broken no law, committed no crime, yet the govt denies you certain rights enumerated in the US constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it say that you can not be quarantined?
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,411
15,559
Colorado
✟427,916.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I showed how they are also similar in some respects.

I also showed that you do not have the right to never be confined against your will. The right that we do have is the right to due process. In accordance, there is a due process for determining if people can be quarantined, just as there is for establishing martial law.



Where in the Constitution does it say that you can not be quarantined?
Seriously???

1st amdmt. The right to freedom of assembly.

Freedom of assembly, along with the other rights, ARE enumerated rights in the US const. They each are spelled out explicitly. Due process is not our only right, as you seem to suggest.

Of course, all rights can be abridged in the right circumstances.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Of course, all rights can be abridged in the right circumstances.

Correct, all rights have limits and this is well established.

Freedom of speech is not limitless and this is why we have laws against libel and defamation.

Freedom of religion is not limitless and when it impacts other people in a negative way, is when that freedom has reached it's limit.

If there was a serious enough public health issue that developed, because certain people refused to be vaccinated, there is no question in my mind, laws would be passed compelling all to be vaccinated (those who could be medically) and the supreme court would uphold this law, because of the risk posed to society in general.
 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
8,118
4,528
✟269,140.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Lets look at it from the way outbreaks are often shown in movies, the evil military killing the valliant hero's trying to flee a quarantine area. But look at it from the realistic point of view, possibly infected people fleeing a area where people who are infected die or worse, and if it gets out it could wipe out humanity. Is killing a few potentially infected people, keeping those that arn't vaccinated or other such things in a area wrong?

They SHOULD be informed decisions and such, none of this someone was 10 blocks from where a infected person was so they can't go back to school, or we can't have kids from hundreds of miles from the ebola outbreak where some countries in europe are closer to the outbreak, come to US kind of Nonsense we had with Ebola.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Audacious

Viva La Socialist Revolution
Oct 7, 2010
1,668
1,086
30
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
✟49,104.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Quarantines exist to prevent deadly diseases from getting out of hand, and harming or even killing at-risk individuals. They are extremely important and exist to stop people from coming to needless harm.

It's that, or allow every person who contracts a disease to become their own little Typhoid Mary, which would end horribly and certainly lead to many, many needless deaths. Freedom of movement can be returned as soon as the crisis is declared over by qualified, relevant health professionals, to stop it the government from using it to prohibit very important freedoms on a permanent or semi-permanent basis.

You know, like the exact system almost every country uses today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ada Lovelace
Upvote 0
Sep 4, 2011
8,023
324
✟10,276.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
Over ten years ago, colleges began requiring proof of measles vaccine for students to register, and much earlier public schools asked for general vaccination records to enroll.

I liked the description of the CA process. It seems fair if people could determine their own location for quarantine, and have choices between hospital and home. Also if a person had mandated quarantine, they could be offered services where nurses come by once a day to check on them, deliver meds, check blood pressure and temp ($).

Grocery stores could partner with health agencies to deliver groceries and meds, using protective gear or dropping off outdoors.

Then make sure there are official quarantine-leave passes for employers to prevent firing, and some option for self-employed to keep operations going.

If it is not presented like a punishment for guilty actions, then people will be more willing to stay indoors voluntarily.

You know, like the exact system almost every country uses today.

And historically.

Leviticus 13: 4 "But if the bright spot is white on the skin of his body, and it does not appear to be deeper than the skin, and the hair on it has not turned white, then the priest shall isolate him who has the infection for seven days.
 
Upvote 0

Conscious Z

Newbie
Oct 23, 2012
608
30
✟8,363.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Do people have, categorically, the moral right NOT to be quarantined*? Why or why not?

*quarantine meaning: the govt imposing isolation on a person for the purpose of preventing the spread of a highly dangerous and contagious disease.

This is a silly question. Of course there are circumstances where the government is justified in quarantining you. If you have a disease that is highly contagious and is likely to kill a million people if you're released, no moral system in the world would posit that you should roam free.

The Constitution is irrelevant to morality. This is a moral question, not a legal question.
 
Upvote 0
K

Kiritsugu Emiyah

Guest
Do people have, categorically, the moral right NOT to be quarantined*? Why or why not?

*quarantine meaning: the govt imposing isolation on a person for the purpose of preventing the spread of a highly dangerous and contagious disease.

Morality is subjective, all you can get are different opinions.

I'm not sure how I feel about it.

I do believe quarantine is mistreatment of human-beings but it's something we've deemed necessary. If it's immoral and I believe it is then It being necessary shouldn't change it to be morally good.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Conscious Z

Newbie
Oct 23, 2012
608
30
✟8,363.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Morality is subjective, all you can get are different opinions.

I'm not sure how I feel about it.

I do believe quarantine is mistreatment of human-beings but it's something we've deemed necessary. If it's immoral and I believe it is then It being necessary shouldn't change it to be morally good.

Differing opinions does not imply that it is subjective.
 
Upvote 0