Public Health Law and Infectious Diseases

This week, our assignment required us to read a case from the Supreme Court of South Carolina as well as reflect on our class lectures on Public Health Law and Infectious Diseases. The reading this week was about Mary V. Kirk, a woman who contracted leprosy while engaged in missionary work. The board of health required her to be removed and sent to the city hospital (a pesthouse near the city's dumping grounds) because of her contagious disease. However, Miss Kirk alleged that although she has leprosy, it is anaesthetic and poses no danger to the community. Ultimately, the case was taken to the Supreme Court of South Carolina where it was determined that her individual right to property and happiness cannot infringe upon others rights to property and happiness. The board of public health required her to be isolated, and although this may not have been the correct decision, they would not be punished for doing what they feel is right and best for the community.

Although quarantine and isolation may seem as though they can be used interchangeably, there is, in fact, a difference. Isolation occurs when someone has a contagious disease and quarantine occurs when someone is exposed to a disease and may or may not become sick.

Miss Kirk felt as though she should have the right to decide whether or not she be quarantined. But who should ultimately decide? I feel as though the board of public health should set up guidelines and regulations that should be enforced by physicians. Individuals may not realize the degree and severity of their disease, or the impact it can have on those around them. It is better to be safe and listen to the professionals who have more experience than the individual.

Now the question is whose job is it to balance the rights of individuals versus the rights of the community? I think it should be up the courts to maintain the balance. If individuals were to follow their physicians advice, balance would not come into question. Only at the point of disagreement, like in the case of Miss Kirk, where the situation escalated would the courts be required to maintain balance. Whether it is favorable to protect the rights of the individual or the community is a tricky situation. As far as I am concerned, a utilitarian point of view is appropriate in this scenario, within reason. This point of view looks for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In the case of Miss Kirk, if she were in fact contagious, simply placing her in isolation would protect her entire community. Miss Kirk, on the other hand, did not want to be isolated. Had she been contagious, remaining among the community could have infected many. With that in mind, in most situations, it is more appropriate to protect the rights of the community when their health is at stake.