Seems to me that indeterminate isolation is a much steeper cost than mere money.
> so you sit your ass down and you don't leave the house until you either die, miraculously are cured, or you change your mind about treatment.
This is the pavement of the road to totalitarianism.
What if the doctors are just... wrong?
I think you are correct, and that GP's solution violates the suspect's right of due process under the 5th Amendment, which is the source of an individual's right to freely travel within the borders of the US. Commonly known as the "travel right," it entails privacy and free domestic movement without governmental abridgment.
her rights do not extend to the point where she has the right to infect others with tuberculosis. common cold, sure, fine, it isn't especially dangerous. tuberculosis IS especially dangerous.
her rights extend to the point where she impedes the rights of others, and no further. this means she can't walk around and spread tuberculosis because of "travel right". travel right is not applicable in certain situations and her situation is one of them.
people do not have unabridgable rights. if you kill someone, and you are found guilty, you lose a lot of rights, including travel right. are you arguing that the 5th amendment applies to everyone, no matter what? that the 2nd amendment applies to everyone, no matter what? you violate the freedoms of others, you get your rights taken away. that's what judicial punishments are.
if you are saying that you can go into a school and kill everyone then walk out and continue to exist freely with your 2nd and 5th amendment rights intact, you may be a sociopath. if you are not saying that, then state what you are saying more clearly, because it sounds like you want complete freedom for people who have tuberculosis and refuse treatment.
spreading tuberculosis is potentially no different than shooting a bunch of people. it's just as lethal, but over a longer period. so if you're saying that she should be allowed to spread tuberculosis wherever she wants, and never be confined because of that, then it sounds like you think you're free to do anything you want to others without any changes to your own freedoms.
if I'm wrong, please explain how I'm wrong.
Motive matters. There is a world of difference between intentionally trying to infect others and doing your best to not infect while still using the right to travel.
A distinction you have failed to acknowledge at all in your narrative. You simply assume guilt and appear to have no real conceptual understanding of justice, guilt, fault and appropriate punishments.
This individual has needs and rights that must be upheld as well.
The ends justify the means is a terrible philosophy that, if pursued, ends in sorrow. Another way to describe it is the many out weigh the few. It is the pavement of the road leading to pretty much every totalitarian government in history.
Finally, every day activities entail a certain amount of risk. Car accidents, disease, pests. You assume these risks to participate in public and they cannot be eliminated. Reasonable efforts to reduce them is fine, but there is a growing mentality that any risk you impose on others is unacceptable and this is an untenable position. You can't reasonably zero out risk.
no, it isn't. telling someone that they are not allowed to freely spread a lethal disease is the exact same as telling someone that they can't freely assault anyone they choose.
> What if the doctors are just... wrong?
all of them? over time? all of whom have reached false positive diagnoses for tuberculosis, for which there are good, reliable tests?
unlikely to the point of virtual impossibility. winning the lottery while being bitten by a shark is probably more likely.