Forced Quarantine Versus Forced Vaccination

[dianahsieh]

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

In late September, some folks on OActivists raised questions about the New York state government mandating the swine flu vaccine for its health care workers. One person wrote:

But what of the authority of the state to do this? I do think it's a valid question. ... I think there can only be justification for such coercive action by the state if it's proven that the flu will be more dangerous than usual and if this vaccine has been proven effective against this virus in an objective scientific manner. Is that the correct Objectivist response?

I replied:

No, I don't think that's right.

First, any government action for an epidemic must concern a seriously dangerous disease -- meaning one that risks mass death -- not merely a "more dangerous than usual" flu.  That danger must be demonstrated objectively by lots of actual deaths.  Moreover, people must be unable to take measures to protect themselves from the disease such as wearing masks, not shaking hands, etc.

Moreover, while quarantine of infected people (or perhaps, in severe cases, suspected infected people) might be justified, a proper state could never mandate vaccination.  Why not?  Vaccination primarily protects the person vaccinated.  It's not a violation of the rights of others to fail to be vaccinated.  You have every right to get sick and die!  The tort lies in knowingly or willingly spreading the disease to others.

So... when a person contracts a dangerous communicable disease and then exposes other people to it by ordinary social interactions, he violates their rights.  It's akin to driving a car while drunk.  That person is exposing other people to major threats to their life and limb without their consent.  That's what justifies government action to protect the healthy -- but only in the form of forced isolation of the sick.

I was reminded of this discussion while catching up on some of Leonard Peikoff's podcasts a few days ago. In Episode #82, Dr. Peikoff addressed this issue, briefly answering the questions: (1) "Is it justified to force sick patients into quarantine if the disease is serious enough?" and (2) "What about a vaccine to force citizens to take it?" Like me, he said that quarantine would be justified in certain cases, but that vaccinations could never be required by the state. Good!

Cross-posted from Metablog

[rebelconservative]

I agree with you entirely, the state cannot mandate vaccination ever (it is a gross violation, an invasion of the body), but there are certain extreme, grave circumstances where forced quarantine could be permissible. of course, swine flu does not qualify.

[Chris.S]

I agree with the vaccination arguments.

But tonight I had a conversation with a friend about drunk driving. I said the state had no business making laws against drunk driving because the car and booze is private property, and if a drunk driver is to harm or kill someone, then that's when the law should step in. But I guess the error I made is that a drunk driver is forcing a dangerous situation on someone. Doesn't that only hold on public roads though?

[aequalsa]

I agree with the vaccination arguments.

But tonight I had a conversation with a friend about drunk driving. I said the state had no business making laws against drunk driving because the car and booze is private property, and if a drunk driver is to harm or kill someone, then that's when the law should step in. But I guess the error I made is that a drunk driver is forcing a dangerous situation on someone. Doesn't that only hold on public roads though?

If I owned a road I would still(contractually) enforce no drinking rules.

That said, assuming public roads as an inevitability, if you are putting someone else at risk, I think it is proper to stop it from occurring regardless of private property issues. If you were target shooting with an automatic weapon on your own property but the bullets were whizzing by your neighbors, then it would seem proper to stop you. Same with driving drunk. Swerving around the road is still putting a lot of people at risk even though you haven't actually hit someone, yet.

[John McVey]

If I owned a road I would still(contractually) enforce no drinking rules.

It woud be more rational to put medically identifiable limits rather than have zero tolerance. As well as issues of how strongly affected is someone by alcohol and whether it is sufficient for action against it, alcohol consumption also has a hormesis effect attached to it. I recall reading that one's abilities to drive improve with low BAC's, then fall off again and only drop down to parity with zero BAC at a reading of around 0.10, which (supposedly) is the basis behind why laws are at or near (eg 0.08 in other jurisdictions) that figure.

That said, assuming public roads as an inevitability, if you are putting someone else at risk, I think it is proper to stop it from occurring regardless of private property issues.

I don't think it even necessary to accept public roads to make that point. Obviously a road owner can make whatever rules he wants and people decide whether or not to be customers - but what if the private owner of roads is silent on the matter? That's when it is legitimate - and necessary - for the law to have a say.

JJM

[DavidOdden]

But I guess the error I made is that a drunk driver is forcing a dangerous situation on someone.

I think that's a questionable conclusion. A drunk driver does not force other people to drive on the same road. If you get on a highway with a drunk driver, you voluntarily get on that highway. It's not as though you have an inalienable right to be free of drunk people, or people who are in some sense dangerous. If that were the case, then if you encounter a drunk person in a bar, that would automatically constitute the initiation of force by the drunk (and it does not).

In an ordinary contract context, the property owner may make some kind of warranty that you may safely enter the premise because there will be no drunks, or nobody will be nude, or whatever it is that might concern you. OTOH maybe, because of the nature of the place, the owner warrants that most people will be drunk, or nude, or whatever. Then you simply make your decision. If it turns out that there's a drunk nude person in this no-drunk no-nude facility, you may have a cause of action against the owner (who may have a cause of action against the drunk node) -- but the drunk nude has not initiated force against you.

The problem with public roads (and other such facilities) is that they totally short-circuit ordinary contract considerations. Suddenly, because it's "public", everybody has the right to do whatever they want. Therefore we have to appeal to reasoning about what individuals would have agreed to if a prior agreement had been required. As far as roads (and not bars) are concerned, the only reasonable conclusion that we can reach is that people would only agree to use the roads if it is safe for them to do so; and having seriously impaired drivers on the road is unsafe, so we cannot conclude that anybody would agree to use a road if a driver with a BAC over, errrm, .12 is present. (I am not at all clear on what that magic number should be).

[Chris.S]

I think that's a questionable conclusion. A drunk driver does not force other people to drive on the same road. If you get on a highway with a drunk driver, you voluntarily get on that highway. It's not as though you have an inalienable right to be free of drunk people, or people who are in some sense dangerous. If that were the case, then if you encounter a drunk person in a bar, that would automatically constitute the initiation of force by the drunk (and it does not).

In an ordinary contract context, the property owner may make some kind of warranty that you may safely enter the premise because there will be no drunks, or nobody will be nude, or whatever it is that might concern you. OTOH maybe, because of the nature of the place, the owner warrants that most people will be drunk, or nude, or whatever. Then you simply make your decision. If it turns out that there's a drunk nude person in this no-drunk no-nude facility, you may have a cause of action against the owner (who may have a cause of action against the drunk node) -- but the drunk nude has not initiated force against you.

The problem with public roads (and other such facilities) is that they totally short-circuit ordinary contract considerations. Suddenly, because it's "public", everybody has the right to do whatever they want. Therefore we have to appeal to reasoning about what individuals would have agreed to if a prior agreement had been required. As far as roads (and not bars) are concerned, the only reasonable conclusion that we can reach is that people would only agree to use the roads if it is safe for them to do so; and having seriously impaired drivers on the road is unsafe, so we cannot conclude that anybody would agree to use a road if a driver with a BAC over, errrm, .12 is present. (I am not at all clear on what that magic number should be).

This is basically what I thought before reading Mrs. Hsieh's post, but where she says

So... when a person contracts a dangerous communicable disease and then exposes other people to it by ordinary social interactions, he violates their rights. It's akin to driving a car while drunk. That person is exposing other people to major threats to their life and limb without their consent. That's what justifies government action to protect the healthy -- but only in the form of forced isolation of the sick.

confuses me. From what she wrote, it sounds like she's equivocating government action vs people with extremely dangerous communicable diseases with government action vs drunk drivers, but without the context of public roads. Maybe that's assumed and is already taking into account your short-circuit. I'll have to remember that about public ownership and those laws.