PDA

View Full Version : Should he be forced into treatment?


topcat450
9th May 2005, 11:43
From the BBC.... here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4528543.stm)

"A man who refused treatment for tuberculosis went on to infect at least 12 others, it has emerged.
The man, in his 40s and currently living in Leicestershire, was diagnosed with TB in 2002.

He has accepted short bursts of treatment, but not the six-month course of antibiotics needed to eradicate the infection." and "We know he has infected 12 people."

Now how can he, knowing full well he has a pretty nasty infectious disease deliberatly refuse treatment and infect others?

Should he be forced into receiving treatment? or is it OK for him to refuse and infect others? I know what I'd personally like to do to the barsteward, what do others think?

Stockpicker
9th May 2005, 11:50
Presumably once one of the people he's infected dies of the disease it becomes manslaughter? So maybe then they could keep him locked up long enough to complete the course?

Devlin Carnet
9th May 2005, 11:59
I dont believe you can be forced to take any medication,
and this is one of the arguments used by the group of people against Fluoridation of water.

Tonic Please
9th May 2005, 12:02
Asshole. Cant his family give him a kick up the rear and tell him what an a hole he is?

The inconsiderate, careless, discourteous, hasty, impolite, incautious, indelicate, intolerant, reckless, rude, self-centered, selfish, sharp, short, tactless, thoughtless, unceremonious, uncharitable, ungracious, unkind, unthinking guy.

:8

Parapunter
9th May 2005, 12:18
A prime example if ever I saw one of public health superseding civil liberties. Question is, who decides?

ORAC
9th May 2005, 12:21
If he knowingly refused treatment and then put himself in the position of infecting others, then he can be tried for inflicting "biological" grievous bodily harm, in the same way that AIDs suffers can for infecting others, under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act.

If detained, he might well complete a full course of treatment whilst on remand and before the case was heard..... :hmm:

airship
9th May 2005, 12:25
I especially appreciated the following in the BBC article: Doctors successfully applied for an order from magistrates in 2002 which forced the man to go to hospital. However, the order had a time limit and he refused to finish the course. and In 2003, the man, whose details have been kept secret because of patient confidentiality rules, was arrested in connection with a serious crime. But police would not interview him because of health and safety rules. After a short period of treatment, the police were able to re-arrest him and he was jailed for three months, when he also received medication. It's interesting to note that a magistrate did order the man to be treated. Appears to look as if there was a communication problem between the doctors and the court regarding the duration of the order though. Later on, the man gets 3 months detention after committing a "serious" crime. Still not long enough (6 months treatment required for proper TB cure) apparently. But I'm glad that today we're very serious about crime. We certainly don't want to go back to the days when starving juveniles were "transported" for stealing a loaf of bread!

Just a thought, but wouldn't it be better for the Crown to arrest terrorism suspects under "health & safety" laws - suspected TB carrier, instead of uhmmm, the traditional "terrorist" legislation?! :O

Lon More
9th May 2005, 12:26
And if you think that was bad, go to an article in "The Scotsman" (http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=497332005) today

tony draper
9th May 2005, 12:38
He should be given the choice betwixt medication or a 9mm.

eal401
9th May 2005, 12:42
Similarly to Orac, I'd suggest he be charged with 12 counts of assault/ABH/GBH, whatever is appropriate.

airship
9th May 2005, 13:03
Re. Lon More's link to the Italian waiter / HIV story. These quotes just about sum it up: She said she knows of at least three other women who had a relationship with Mola... ...to face charges involving a woman he dated in 2003, who accused him of refusing to wear a condom and deliberately infecting her with HIV and hepatitis. Then, one night he told me he did not have a key to the flat he was staying in and I said he could stay at my flat. I had no intention to start a relationship with him, but that is how it began. Ms Y, who had not had a sexual partner for nine years before meeting Mola, began seeing him last year on a casual basis for "sex and friendship Mola, who apparently boasted of having had 100 lovers

The solution was also suggested by one of the women, Mrs. Y (who has so far escaped from being infected by Mola): I want everybody to know that this can happen to anybody, that we have the choice in these situations to say ‘no’,

Or should that be a NO! YES! YES! NON! ?! :rolleyes: