Click here to order similar paper @Essaybay.net. 100% Original.Written from scratch by professional writers.

The Effectiveness of State and Federal Quarantine Laws

 

Name

University

Course

Tutor

Date

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

One of the core functions of the public health law remains to be the minimization of infectious diseases’ transmission. Apt legal powers’ exercise will always vary in accordance with the disease’s gravity, transmission means and the manner through which the infection is easily spread. Notably, with the increasing day after day terrorist attacks coupled with the elevating anxiety by the public concerning the spread of highly communicable infections, for instance SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), the federal and local, together with local governments have all observed the importance of having an effective public health response to such incidents. In this respect, an effective approach to this phenomenon may include isolation of individuals who have been exposed to infected biological agents, contagious diseases and even terrorist action together with quarantine of specific localities.

Quarantine remains to be the main restrictive measure not to mention that it has the potential of been the most effective at limiting the infection’s spread. Even though, the effectiveness of quarantine mainly relies on the cooperation and compliance of the society/public, major obstructions to compliance remain evident for the individuals directed or required to enter quarantine, for instance, loss of income at the time of quarantine and even loss of employment after the exercise. Currently, especially in the United States of America, quarantine authority is principally vested in state and local governments, with the federal authority of ordering a quarantine only reserved for containment at national borders alongside preventing infections transmission amidst states. Thus, this paper will begin by demonstrating the varying degrees of quarantine before extensively exploring the effectiveness of federal and state quarantine laws.

The Varying Quarantine Degrees

First and foremost, complete quarantine usually involves the confinement of the contagious persons to their residences pursuant to the state’s health department orders. The health officials are entitled to post a public notice that forbids any person from either exiting or entering the dwelling in question. On other angles, these officials can confine an individual who is infected, to either a hospital or even a prison (Gensini,Yacoub & Conti, 2004). Again, the health authorities have the capacity to order the so-termed as a modified quarantine, which selectively restricts a person from engaging in certain activities, for example, occupations that involve attending school, food preparation or hazardous activities. The law of quarantine has also been seen to comprise of the power to place an infected person under surveillance in order to make sure that he/she strictly complies with quarantine orders. Lastly, the health department can issue orders of segregation; an aspect requiring the separation of a whole group of individuals from the public (Lodge et al, 2006).

The Prevalent Quarantine Laws’ Effectiveness

• Addressing the Transmission of Emerging Diseases

Diverse studies have demonstrated that the prevalent quarantine laws do not adequately address the spread of contagious infections that are caused by biological agents, particularly arising from terrorist activities or attacks. Scholars have maintained that quarantine law is more than a century old and it contains features that are to some extent irrelevant to the contemporary knowledge on infectious diseases and treatment (Gensini,Yacoub & Conti, 2004). In addition, these laws have failed to address emerging diseases such as the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). As a consequence, it is evident that the existing quarantine laws will be ineffective as the public health system is forced to take measures of preventing infections transmission only in times of disease outbreak or during an introduction of an agent of a contagious disease in the population (Moulton et al, 2003). Moreover, it is evident that these laws are not effective as the public health department, mainly in the United States has been observed to only put up notice to the public forbidding them from moving or travelling in and out of a certain state, city or neighbourhood.

• Provisions of the Public Health Service Act (Secretary’s Authority/Power)

Subtly, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, under the provisions in the Public Health Service Act has the power of making and enforcing regulations that are required in the prevention of the introduction, together with the transmission/spread of communicable infections from foreign nations or from one state into another (Moulton et al, 2003). However, this law contains significant limitations on the power of the Secretary to enact rules that provide for apprehending, detaining or conditional releasing of people. Therefore, subjecting the Secretary to consultations with the President; a facet that not only endorses bureaucracy, but also consumes a lot of time, will definitely affect the effectiveness of these laws (Lodge et al, 2006). In addition, these regulations remain ineffective since they maintain that the only people who are immigrating into a certain state are to be examined, detained or released conditionally in case they are infected with biological agents, an issue that has the potential of endangering a great number of health individuals.

• Screening and Detention Law Provisions of the Infected Individuals

The quarantine law has effectively featured the provisions for both screening and detention of the persons that are infected and are in motion from one state to another, an aspect that is quite crucial in preventing the spread or transmission of contagious infections (Gensini,Yacoub & Conti, 2004). In this respect, these laws have proved to be quite effective, especially during the times of crisis or war as they provide that every person believed to be infected or believed to be the source of the infection has to be screened and that he/she should remain within the area specified by the President. Conversely, as much as this provision may seem effective, the idea of only following these Executive orders does not provide sufficient room for exchange of better decisions and suggestions on restriction of infected individuals from travelling (Lodge et al, 2006). Fortunately, the idea of prohibiting infected people from state to state without a permit from the state’s health officer has highly played a significant role in curbing infections spread, hence, demonstrating an effective nature of quarantine laws.

• The Role of State in Defining and Selecting Infections

The State has the mandate of defining the diseases that are subject to quarantine, a critical facet that demonstrates the functioning nature of the quarantine laws (Neuman, 2010). In this sense, the public health department is given the right to selecting infections that are classified as contagious, a feature that promotes the effectiveness of quarantine laws since the main issues are extensively addressed. Furthermore, these state quarantine laws are deemed effective since in distinct approaches that are specific to varied states, the local concerns apply so as to establish the period of time for the quarantine recommended (Lodge et al, 2006). Substantially, these laws are effective mainly because any isolated person who is often released after the health department has determined that the individual cannot communicate a disease to others or he/she does not contain any health danger to the health population.

• Inconsistent and Problematic Quarantine Laws

In several occasions, the state quarantine laws have remained to be inconsistent and problematic, vividly confirming an ineffective nature. According to different scholars and analysts, the state has been reluctant to re-evaluating these laws, placing their excuse on the increasing improvement in medicine, prevalence decline along with the decreasing threat of communicable diseases (Lodge et al, 2006). As a result, the emerging threats have forced several states to come up with novel emergency response approaches, on top of reviewing their laws so as to fit the current context as well as threats.

Conclusion

As earlier mentioned, quarantine is the most restrictive approach and it has the potential of being the most effective measure of limiting any infection from spreading. The effectiveness of quarantine reaches its peak at a very high percentage of compliance, hence, high public cooperation with quarantine remains critical in containing any disease transmission. Significantly, law plays a major role in preventing infectious diseases and the federal, state and even local governments have carefully consider the appropriate role of criminal law at times of amending laws so as to prevent communicable disease transmission.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Gensini, G. F., Yacoub, M. H., & Conti, A. A. (2004). The concept of quarantine in history: from plague to SARS. Journal of Infection, 49(4), 257-261.

Lodge, D. M., Williams, S., MacIsaac, H. J., Hayes, K. R., Leung, B., Reichard, S., … & Carlton, J. T. (2006). Biological invasions: recommendations for US policy and management. Ecological applications, 16(6), 2035-2054.

Moulton, A. D., Gottfried, R. N., Goodman, R. A., Murphy, A. M., & Rawson, R. D. (2003). What is public health legal preparedness?. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31(4), 672-683.

Neuman, G. L. (2010). Strangers to the Constitution: immigrants, borders, and fundamental law. Princeton University Press.