Comment by czx4f4bd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by czx4f4bd | Hacker News Reader

Before somebody comes in here railing about government overreach, she was ordered to get treated or stay in isolation in January 2022 and hasn't complied, instead going out in the community and putting others at risk. Moreover, this was her 17th court hearing, so it's not like this was their immediate reaction.

From the article:

> But, the department seemed to reach a breaking point this January. In addition to the woman's defiance hitting the one-year mark, on January 11 she was involved in a car accident as a passenger. The incident clearly showed the woman was violating her self-isolation order, which put the driver at risk of infection. Additionally, the woman went to the emergency department a day later complaining of chest pain and did not tell doctors about her active tuberculosis case, putting them and other hospital staff at risk. When they did lung X-rays, they initially suspected she had cancer. But in fact, the images showed that her tuberculosis case was worsening.

No article make clear why she refused I believe.

I can't help to wonder if it's a modern spin of Typhoid Mary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon).

Germ theory was also pretty new at the time and not something most working class people would know about, nor did Mary have symptoms.

Contrary to today, germ theory is taught in elementary schools and is well understood by basically everyone. And this woman was clearly experiencing symptoms bad enough to require an ER visit! Visiting the ER likely also means that most of the common religious reasons such as being a Christian Scientist are out the window.

At a certain point it becomes willful negligence and not ignorance.

Because the drug the US insists upon has some nasty side effects that are potentially life ending/changing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoniazid#Side_effects

that's a reason to refuse treatment, not a reason to deliberately put the lives of others at risk.

She is a walking biohazard. If you want to be in society there is a minimal level of responsiblity, otherwise go to the forest and build a lean-to and live out the rest of your tb shortened life.

The question isn't the immediacy, it's your right to choose. "Take these drugs, or else" is the choice being offered to her. Constitutionally speaking, one might argue she have an option to live her life unimpeded.

I don't disagree with the court's sentiment, she's absolutely a public health hazard. But I also don't think people should have a right to bear arms, freely insult others beyond the point of harassment etc, etc.

>insult others beyond the point of harassment

What do you mean by this?

I mean that a lot of speech that goes to court and gets defended by the first amendment should possibly be actionable. There are plenty of extremists who walk this line but the Westboro Baptist Church are the first that come to my mind. There's also plenty of hypocrisy when applying these laws. A lot more brown people seem to get prosecuted for radicalisation than white "Christian" extremists.

IMO: It's okay to hold the opinion, it's okay to air the opinion, but picketing funeral processions? You're being a dick. Straight to jail.

I think that's a problem with freedoms in general is that there's no scope to measure people being a dick to people who aren't. The law should have leeway in both directions for outliers.

Just my take, anyway. It probably is worse than outright freedom but it might feel fairer for a few minutes.

> You're being a dick. Straight to jail.

But what about protest? I don't know.

I understand the need for protest, and I would defend most of it. But the last few years has also seen a lot of protests that go too far; people hiding under the skirt of protest when they're actually just there to riot, instigate violent confrontation.

Is it okay to superglue yourself to a road to protest oil? Is it okay to break shit, block or delay thousands of normal people to get a message across?

The law doesn't do "sometimes" very well, and people don't do "balanced and unbiased" very well. I'm not sure what's right.

The supreme court has said repeatedly that she has the right to refuse treatment but not the right to be free while doing so. They can force isolate her indefinitely until she’s not a public hazard.

Jailed people don't have the right to refuse treatment though, and TB shots are applied every time an inmate is moved into or out of population.

This isn’t true.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow;

  *I shot an arrow into the air,

  It fell to earth, I knew not where;

  For, so swiftly it flew, the sight

  Could not follow it in its flight.*

Celebratory Gunfire : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire

The facts you quote are orthogonal to the notion that this is government overreach. If it’s government overreach to order her to get medical treatment it doesn’t matter how much notice she’s been given.

One of the oldest powers and responsibilities of government has been to try to prevent the spread of deadly communicable diseases.

Ordering her isolation and treatment is well within the historical powers of governments.

For someone who disagrees or objects to the exercise of these powers, the amount of notice given before forcing treatment is not relevant.

It's not that she's been given notice many times; its that she's continued to take actions that threaten the health of the community - which have led to those notices.

The comment of mine you’re replying to is specifically about notice as it relates to the notion of government overreach - it is replying to a comment that is also about those things. (That’s about all I have opinions on here, so I render no judgment on your point)

To my understanding the current law of the land as affirmed by the supreme court many times over the last 150 years is you can not be compelled to be treated for an infectious disease but you absolutely can be isolated against your will if you are a danger to others, as well as other sanctions like fines.

This doesn’t relate to what I said. The point is that for those who believe this is government overreach saying “she had plenty of notice” is a non sequitur.

If you believe something is a right, giving more notice before abrogating it does not factor into whether it is a rights violation.

Everything I’ve said here, by the way, is true regardless of your position on the court’s action (on which I’ve stated no position). If people believe (six people here and counting, and I’m not saying you’re one of them) that they need to downvote a basic factual observation because it vaguely seems to contradict their opinions, maybe they should examine why they so lack confidence in their opinions.

No. She went to jail for violating a judge's orders to get treated or isolate. You shouldn't go to jail for violating a judge's orders?

It does actually. Under the framework of the government in the US the Supreme Court decides what’s over reach, not your internal feelings. One could argue the existence of a government at all is over reach and they’re in many ways right. But they’re also irrelevant opinions because they have no authority. Ultimately those who hold the guns and prisons decide the scope of their power and we have collectively agreed that scope is the interpretation of the supreme court and the constitutional laws passed by the legislature. So, until you can provide something that is the opinion of the Supreme Court, you’re just factually wrong. Your opinion of right and wrong, while you’re entitled to it, is completely irrelevant.

The notice is relevant because it’s indicative of due process and an attempt to respect her individual rights and balance it with the public good, which she has repeatedly ignored and results in the escalation to the rightful isolation.

Throwing someone immediately into a sanitarium for having tuberculosis vs. throwing them in jail after 17 court visits because they wouldn’t stay away from other people is a massive difference.

Ignoring all details and focusing on just the end result as if that’s all that matters leads to foolish ignorance.

Furthermore, they didn’t order her to get medical treatment. They ordered her to stay away from potential victims if she didn’t get treated.

> Throwing someone immediately into a sanitarium for having tuberculosis vs. throwing them in jail after 17 court visits because they wouldn’t stay away from other people is a massive difference.

A “massive difference” in many contexts but not for those who oppose mandatory medical treatment.

Who else would possibly argue that this is government overreach than people with that belief?

This isn’t about mandatory medical treatment because the medical treatment in this case isn’t mandatory.

I would absolutely be against mandatory medical treatment. But that’s not the truth here.

It’s the same old chestnut: people who wrongly think their freedoms are more important than everyone else’s freedoms. They are upset at the idea of being confined to their home when they have tuberculosis or covid or whatever. They don’t value the lives of the rest of their community and so they see themselves as victims.

The article is clear that this is about mandatory treatment:

“Sorenson ordered a civil warrant for her arrest, to be enforced on or after March 3, and again ordered her to jail to undergo involuntary testing and treatment until health officials deem it safe to release her.”

separate from the very long saga leading up to this, I generally share your concern about that. But that does not invalidate everything that came prior.

However, what’s the practical solution? What do you think they should do to protect the jail staff and population if she refuses treatment? Maybe we just drop her off on a deserted island?

Exaggeration aside, I’m truly curious. How do we protect everyone else’s freedom to be safe and secure from her without impinging upon hers?

This is often the point where people start bending reality rather than recognizing the hypocrisy of their beliefs. They’ll start to suggest that covid or tuberculosis isn’t actually that dangerous, or perhaps isn’t real at all, so we aren’t actually faced with this predicament.

I do not have, and have never taken, a position on the order.

You yourself have taken a stronger position in your prior comment: “I would absolutely be against mandatory medical treatment.” Does that mean you are now against this order, now that you are aware that it forces medical treatment?

Good question! I’m against mandatory medical treatment. But I’m also pragmatic and recognize that having a belief doesn’t mean that belief must be enforced at all costs.

Any predicament that boils down to “one of these parties’ freedoms needs to be impinged” demands flexibility of values. The world isn’t perfect like that.

If she refuses to cooperate and find a compromise (like staying away from people if she continues to be a risk to their lives), then regrettably, the least evil option is probably mandatory treatment. But I’m truly eager to find an alternative. Any alternative. As long as it isn’t “just let her hurt people.”

P.S. I appreciate this discussion. Please don’t think I’m coming after you— just the argument.

> I’m also pragmatic and recognize that having a belief doesn’t mean that belief must be enforced at all costs.

But you said two comments ago you were “absolutely” against forced medical treatment. This clearly has softened?

I bring this up not to dunk on you but to acknowledge a prior point you made which I think is a strong one: “people start bending reality rather than recognizing the hypocrisy of their beliefs”

I hasten to add I’m also not calling you a hypocrite! But I quote that, and in particular the “bending reality” part, because I think this goes both ways, not for just one party in a debate.

One lesson from me from Covid was that no one side in a debate has a monopoly on the practice of subordinating hard facts to emotion or prior belief and that we all have to bend over backwards to point out flawed reasoning even when it supports a position we are inclined to like. That was the whole point of my very first post in this thread.

I definitely concede that point. Perhaps I should say “I’m strongly against it”. Absolute is too absolute. Clearly I am not absolute on this belief.

Whatever word communicates, “only when there is no less evil alternative.”

I don't think OP was trying to preempt concern that it's government overreach to order her to seek treatment or self-isolate: very few people would seriously argue that the government can't require someone with an active case of tuberculosis to stay out of the supermarket.

Jailing her is what could be interpreted by a reasonable person as overreach, and for that concern the amount of notice she was given is absolutely relevant.

> very few people would seriously argue that the government can't require someone with an active case of tuberculosis to stay out of the supermarket.

The linked article seemed to me to clearly state if she goes to jail it’s to isolate and definitely also to get treated (“ordered her to jail to undergo involuntary testing and treatment until health officials deem it safe to release her”). Hence my focus on people who are against forced treatment - I don’t think notice and warning ameliorates their concerns at all.

One of the jobs of government is, in fact, to protect innocent people from the bad behavior of others. The government shouldn't force her to get treated, but the government can protect others from exposure to potentially lethal and costly disease because of her violation of public health directives.

This is not overreach, it's the exact right touch to restrict harm to the other individuals in the community.

I did not say it’s overreach. I said it’s irrelevant how much notice she’s been given if you believe it’s overreach.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com