TB patient charged in Calif for not taking meds
By SUDHIN THANAWALA, Associated Press
May. 17, 2012 1:47AM PDT
Armando Rodriguez was warned several times to continue taking his tuberculosis medicine.
So on Tuesday, authorities took the unusual step of arresting Rodriguez and charging him with refusing to comply with a tuberculosis order to be at home at certain times and make appointments to take his medication.
Authorities arrested him because he was contagious....is this a good reason?
http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/ap/tb-pa … aking-meds
Absolutely he should be arrested and quarantined otherwise he is aiding the spread of a lethal illness if someone was driving around with uncovered toxic waste they would be arrseted too, they are recklessly endangering other people.
If someone is contageous and a threat to other peoples health then yes, I agree they should be arrested if they deliberately put other peoples health at risk.
If there is a risk to other people, the person should be arrested.
No, no and no. Arrests should only be made when direct harm is caused to an individual. What an individual does with their own body is their own business, as is their right. To violate that is to partake in a grave crime against humanity.
It is a stain on the reputation of America that the population has allowed its government to expand so as to force people to consume what they would not otherwise. The fact that it has to be enforced is also a poor reflection on the supposed 'benefits' of the medication in question. By definition, the US is now a police state.
I have a right to life in America. When a man who is contagious with a deadly disease has been instructed time and time again to take his meds and refuses, he is a danger to the population, and he is infringing on their right to life should he infect them with TB.
Not only that, but it's incredibly self-centered to essentially say "screw 'em" to the rest of the population and ignore what you've been told several times and go around and possibly infect people with TB. Whatever happened to regard for others?
It's 'direct harm' when he infects someone with TB and they become gravely ill or die. It's definitely harm!
Fine you have small children out grocery shopping and he should expose them to this danger. Then you should have to explain this to them of how we did "not want to violate this persons right" So you now have this and are sick. Yes make him comply to take medications. If it was just himself I could understand his right to refuse. But the fact he could get or could be contagious.
You wouldn't be saying that if someone coughed in your face and gave you a deadly disease.
Having TB is not 'something you choose to do with your body". It is attempted murder against any elderly person, child or immune compromised person who happens to sit next to you on the bus. I would rather lock up the idiot plague rat than bury a grandmother.
Let's imagine for a second what would happen if big pharmaceutical companies, for example, lobbied the government to enforce this because their medicines did not work or were actually dangerous to the individual taking it. Would you all still agree with this? So there is a line to be drawn?
This thread isn't talking about big pharma lobbying the government or about medicines not working right.
It actually is, if one would look beyond what one can see right in front of them. Nobody has yet thought about why this needs to be enforced nor why the gentleman is refusing to take the medicine. Is it because he enjoys being sick and enjoys infecting people, or is it something to do with that I have mentioned?
The point is - where do you draw the line? At what point does enforcing medication turn from moral to immoral? Or is it simply immoral altogether?
Did you even read the article? It states clearly why he stopped taking his meds, and it has nothing to do with big pharma. Just more concern for self than for others.
Apply some imagination though, please. Why the militant persecution of a person who did not intend to do harm on another person? I would also appreciate an answer to the question - when is it immoral to do this?
I don't have time to play imaginary games with you. Sorry, but you'll have to find someone else who's willing to make mountains out of mole hills.
Well you've revealed your lack of respect for the basic tenants of liberty all right. I can not associate with people who support tyranny.
He cannot be detained if he is not arrested and he won't take the drugs so you think we should just release him to potentially kill dozens of people with the illness he has?
Again, the same fallacy "we have to use violence to get this done, otherwise it would not get done at all!". There are methods in which we can safeguard against being infected that don't involve violence, but involve personal responsibility. I'm afraid your policy here is an incentive for tyrants.
They arrested him.... are you under the notion that they beat him up while doing it? Being taken into custody isn't necessarily a violent action, you know.
Detention is an act of violence. Theft is violence, too. It doesn't necessarily denote beating someone up.
So all those long hours I spent in detention in high school should actually be considered violence against me? So I had a right to be disruptive and pose a danger to other students and the school was wrong to chuck my butt in detention?
1. If part of the school's rules is not to disrupt the class and if so they have the right to detain you, then that is fine. By participating in that contract and violated you have consented to it.
2. If you're being violent to people in the class then detention is necessary.
I am a rights advocate and apparently you've no understanding of anything beyond yourself and your own individual rights, which are skewed by something else.
When YOU or anyone else for that matter is a danger to not only themselves but to other people, then force will be used. The fact that you're completely dismissing the fact that he was contagious is utterly absurd.
Unless the man is physically rubbing himself against other people he is not committing an act of violence and should not be treated as such. This is someone who abstained from taking his medication for his own wellbeing. If in order to stop infection we are forcing people to self-harm, something has gone wrong.
If he was really concerned about his wellbeing, don't you think he would have stopped drinking and using methamphetamine's.....?
Do you think the body's pores don't work in public? He was contagious.
Innersmiff say you were the cop who was called in unbound by the rules, you have a contagious guy refusing to take meds who cannot be legally held unless he is arrested but if he is released could cause the deaths of dozens of people, what do you do?
BTW he is guilty of a crime, it's called reckless endangerment. Ones rights do not extend to threatening the lives of others.
What violence are you talking about? Are you making things up?
Did doctors beat him up?
M'kay you do that. I'm sure I'll get over the lack of your conversation someday.... somehow...
Another shining example of why libertarians are not taken seriously. You rationalize Ron Paul's support of taking away a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body while simultaneously supporting a nitwit's right to infect others with a disease that can kill, using the argument that he has a right to choose what to do with his own body.
Having someone who is contagious roaming around freely is retarded, dangerous and could get someone else dead.
There's no need for you "imagined" example.
In response, since I can't hit the reply button:
'1. If part of the school's rules is not to disrupt the class and if so they have the right to detain you, then that is fine. By participating in that contract and violated you have consented to it.
2. If you're being violent to people in the class then detention is necessary.'
So let's look at your first point and look at it from a societal viewpoint. We have explicit rules that say you will not knowingly cause harm to another person. Maybe this is a big assumption, but this man knew he was contagious, he knew the danger that TB poses and he knowingly entered society while still contagious (after all, he'd been told several times to take his medication). If he infects someone, he is knowingly causing harm to society. By participating in society in this way, he is violating the law (or contract as you called it). And therefore, detention is necessary until he can reenter society without violating the laws.
I think I understand your point that detaining him might be a breach of his rights to not take his medication, but is it moral to ignore the rights to life that belong to the rest of the society he is endangering? Do we protect the rights of one man, or the most basic human right (life) of an entire society? Can we protect both by simply removing him from society and allowing him to continue to not take his meds so the rest of society can continue to live?
I don't have a definitive answer to those questions myself. Just throwing them out there.
You said though, on another thread "Violence as an act of self-defence is moral."
Is it not self defense to remove a potentially lethal man from society until he is no longer a danger? I'm confused-- your logic seems contradictory to me.
I may inject an opinion to many good responses already given. Perhaps quarantining them in a special floor of a hospital if a patient was contagious and a danger to others and himself.
Putting them in jail and the criminal system seems like a waste of time and money.
Under the law people cannot be detained without being arrested, so if they were not arrested they could just leave and no one could legally stop them.
This I have no problem with.
Yes, putting them in a prison would be completely foolish.
I know someone who refused to have an insulin shot that they really needed and the doctor was going to call the police, because they were endangering their own life. In many states it is against the law to commit suicide.
This person is not only endangering their own life, but the lives of everyone they come into contact with. There are laws against it. If someone with aids endangers people by not telling them and then have relations with them, they can be charged. Why not this man?
Doctors are bound by their oath to protect their patient. Doing nothing isn't an option.
I guess, if you wanted to treat both diseases as equally dangerous? Which, I wouldn't want to do, but in this case, let's. If it were that way, then he could be arrested, tried and convicted for attempted murder, because he intentionally disregarded the well being of the public. Meaning, he did his action with the purpose and sole intent of infecting others because he knew he was contagious.
However, I would rather not speculate on the how his treatment effects his mind and body, or whatever else is going on in his head.
I would rather have compassion for the man because he is sick and needs help. The safety of the public is a must. Prison doesn't have to an option, but confinement while contagious is a requirement.
He is knowingly contagious with a deadly disease.
He is a medical loaded gun pointing at anyone and everyone he comes in contact with>
If his disease was mental illness he would be 5150'd as a danger to himself OR OTHERS. This seems to me the physical illness equivalent.
He is armed and dangerous!
It was in not only in his best interest's but the general population's. I cannot believe that people do such selfish and irresponsible things. There are people who die from TB.
I don't think he should have been jailed.
Jail is not the place for sick people, especially those who carry a contagious disease.
Instead, he should have been sent to a secure mental unit where there are nurses on hand to ensure he took his medication, and he could expect to be released after about a year of treatment, as that is how long TB drugs need to be taken for.
The article said he wasn't contagious at that point, just that be could become contagious if he didn't continue his medication.
This is a big problem with TB and not confined to America.
After the initial couple of courses, the patient feels a lot better and is no longer contagious, but the course has to be continued for a long period of time to eradicate the tubercles bacillus from the body completely.
I used to work in an infectious diseases hospital.
Many down and out men used to stop taking their medication in the winter, knowing that they would be hospitalised for a couple of months, giving them a nice warm bed and 3 meals a day away from the icy streets.
The only reason TB didn't flare up in the community was because these men were hospitalised and given their drug treatment to stop them becoming infectious again.
It's a similar issue.
Then again, the US don't seem to have free medical care, so jail is maybe the cheaper option. But it's the wrong place for him.
by Doodlehead4 years ago
I don't understand the "no focus" on the AMA behind all this which condones the use of psychoactive drugs.Why does the burniing desire to drug our entire population rank so low as a solution to...
by schoolgirlforreal5 years ago
In my 20+ years of experience with psychiatrists, I've had doctors who have been very willing to take the patient's input and some who have been reluctant.Sometimes we become aware of a medication that has worked well...
by L a d y f a c e6 years ago
I've been on Lithium and Wellbutrin xl for a little under two years now, and I want so badly to be off of them both. Contrary to what some people experience, I've been losing weight since I started taking them. I lost...
by DannyMaio6 years ago
Curious if everyone thinks Paris is wrong for banning Muslim Veils? Just seems very odd that you go to another country and refuse to obey their laws? If you do not like it why not go back where you came from? If it was...
by bipolar girl6 years ago
Hey folks im needing some advice from some fellow Bipolar peeps. I've decided to come off the meds and do it alone. The weight gain was unbearable. Does any1 else out there have bipolar and manage to cope without meds?
by schoolgirlforreal3 years ago
I've been told all kinds of thingsthat it's not real, that there's no such thing as a chemical imbalance but there has to be...What's your take on it?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.