The Rights Of Isolated And Quarantined Individuals In The State Of Maine (Essay Sample)

THE RIGHTS OF ISOLATED AND QUARANTINED INDIVIDUALS IN THE STATE OF MAINE
SUBMITTED BY:
Introduction
Isolation and quarantine of patients suffering from communicable diseases that can be transmitted to other individuals in the populace is controlled by the public health officials both in the Federal level and at the State level. The regulation of public health safety by Congress and State legislation is made to ensure that the rights of individuals suffering from communicable diseases are protected and that isolation is done in a way that promotes and respects the Bill of Rights entrenched in the United States Constitution. The legislative instruments are also meant to give powers and authority to certain bodies to undertake this function of upholding public health safety and how to assist those suffering from such diseases get treatment.
The State of Maine is one of the States in the United States of America with progressive and elaborate legal instruments that are enacted to ensure that public safety is maintained vis-à-vis protection of the rights of individual patients. The main statute regulating this area is Title 22: Health and Welfare Chapter 250: Control of Notifiable Diseases and Conditions. This legislation was passed to exercise this public function, the measures to take in case of a public health risk and the legal procedures that ought to be undertaken to ensure that there is utmost respect of human rights. In this case touching on the homeless man, the appropriate legislation that was employed by the public health officials in administering treatment on the patient was Title 22: Health and Welfare Chapter 250: Control of Notifiable Diseases and Conditions and the United States Constitution.
To fully understand and appreciate how Chapter 250: Control of Notifiable Diseases and Conditions permitted public health officials to take actions in this case, it is necessary to delve in a little bit to see how the statute works in such cases. First, it is important to see how the Statute defines certain words relevant to this discourse. These words include: Communicable diseases and extreme public health emergency. “Communicable disease” means an illness or condition due to a specific infectious agent or its toxic products which arises through transmission of that agent or its products which arises through transmission of that agent or its products from a reservoir to a susceptible host (HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 250: CONTROL OF NOTIFIABLE DISEASES AND CONDITIONS). Extreme public health emergency means the occurrence or imminent threat of widespread exposure to a highly infectious or toxic agent that poses an imminent threat of substantial harm to the population of the State (HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 250: CONTROL OF NOTIFIABLE DISEASES AND CONDITIONS).
Since his refusal to be treated and the fact that his Tuberculosis had become drug resistant, this would pose a danger to the public. The Statute gives the Authority, inter alia, to establish procedures for the control, detection, prevention and treatment of communicable, environmental and occupational diseases, including public immunization and contact notification programs(HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 250: CONTROL OF NOTIFIABLE DISEASES AND CONDITIONS). This section clearly confers the Department the jurisdiction to ensure that treatment has been provided. In administering treatment, the Department sought a court order which is prerequisite under the Statute. The definitions highlighted herein together with the sections, are important to establish whether the Department was justified in the actions it took against the homeless man. This is clearly within the mandate given under this Statute.
The Constitutionality of Isolation and Quarantine
The next issue of concern is to establish whether the statute employed by the State of Maine conformed to the tenets that are enshrined in the United States Constitution. It has often been stated that the Constitution is the yardstick every legislation. If a legislative instrument does not conform to the Constitution, then its constitutionality can be challenged in Court.
In this case, the relevant constitutional measures include equal protection of rights, following due process in isolation, quarantine and administering treatment and ensuring that the patient receives proper and dignified treatment, and the Commerce clause in the United States Constitution. It is imperative that the individuals are isolated is not based on racial lines or immigrants from a particular country. This amounts to discriminatory behavior and can be challenged in a Court of Law. In conducting this, the patients should also be treated equally with dignity and made to feel comfortable in the areas that they are being held for treatment. The other important aspect is following due process in administering treatment. The individual is supposed to be accorded a court hearing and heard if he or she is opposed to being isolated, the judge of the District Court may issue an order in favor of either parties in the case. He is also entitled to an appeal in case he or she is dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court.
The quarantine or isolation should be imposed in a manner that preserves the individuals’ Constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. To comply with equal protection, the intervention must be non-discriminatory. For example, confining only Russian immigrants during a tuberculosis epidemic would be considered arbitrary because, on its face, it has little applicability to the transmission avenues, and discriminatory due to the focus on nationality or alien status (Sarah Pope et al Protecting Civil Liberties During Quarantine and Isolation in Public Health Emergencies).
The other Constitutional challenge that would arise with regard to legislation on public safety vis-à-vis the rights of an individual arises out of the complex but monumental commerce clause in the United States Constitution. Any decision taken up by public health officials in the United States ought to be measured against the commerce clause. If it is established by the authorities that the State Statute or public health decision violates this provision, the isolation and quarantine would not be sanctioned by Courts in the State of Maine. The leading case law touching on the matter of isolation and quarantine of patients in the United States include the 1995 classicus case decided by the US Supreme Court in the State vs. - Lopez (1995).
Case Law on Isolation and Quarantine of Infected Persons
The rights of an individual vis-à-vis the protection of public safety has been subject to numerous court cases that have interpreted the statutes. The parameters that have been set are very high and it is important to revisit some of the established rules that have to be adhered to. In the case of Smith v Emery, the facts of the case were that in April 1894, there was a large outbreak of smallpox and the most affected was the Eastern District. The Plaintiff operated his business in the area employing over ten employees. The public health officials visited his business and sought to vaccinate him of which he declined. He was later quarantined. When the matter came to court, the primary issue was whether the quarantine was justified and lawful. The Learned judge stated that the mere possibility that persons may have been exposed to disease is not sufficient. They must have been exposed to it, and the conditions actually exist for the communication of the contagion in order to bring into operation the power to isolate ( Smith V Emery. 42 N.Y Supp.258, 260 (1896)).
The facts in the case of State of Arkansas v Snow were that, the State of Arkansas had brought the matter under Act No 61 of the Arkansans legislature of 1955. They sought to have Snow who had been suffering from TB committed at the Arkansas Tuberculosis Sanatorium. It was contended that Snow had declined treatment and this posed as a danger to the public. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the decision of the trial court and emphatically stated that, the petitioner had failed to show by sufficient and competent evidence that the respondent has tuberculosis in a communicable or infectious stage; has failed to establish by sufficient and competent evidence that the circumstances are not suitable for proper isolation or contagious control; has failed to establish by sufficient and competent evidence that the respondent is a source of danger to others and has failed to establish by sufficient and competent evidence that the respondent should be committed to the sanatorium (Arkansas v Snow, 324 S.W 2d 532).
Lastly, the courts have been unequivocal in stating that commitment of patients for treatment cannot be done unless the same has been sanctioned through a court order. The process provided under the Maine Statute on public health provide for an elaborate legal procedure that ought to be followed. Once the application has been filed in court, then the judge of the District Court conducts a hearing in which he has the discretion to make an order for the person to be isolated and quarantined. This order is made after the patient or his counsel has been heard. The order issued by the court validates the committal of the person to a treatment facility where treatment is to commence. This position was taken by the learned judges in the case of Ex parte Hardcastle the court ob...