Quarantine Persuasive Speech

A way the government control diseases in the population is by planning and evaluating the health and social care provision, they do this by assessing the services that are being provided and see if they are helping problems that take place. It is also important that when infectious diseases have come up, it is a legal requirement that it is reported to the appropriate people, by doing this measures can be put in place to stop them spreading. An example for this is when diseases such as Tuberculosis (TB) and Measles are diagnosed or suspected, the local medical officer is responsible for monitoring the disease and

States. It is solely for the purpose of keeping the general public safe and controlling the epidemic.

“Quarantine is the controlling of the important or export of animals, plants, and other products for the purpose of controlling the spread of disease.”

Quarantine requires ethical justification and it imposes sizable costs on communities as well as individuals in terms of both liberty and economic impacts. The author mentions that basic ethical justification for quarantine stems from our moral obligation not to harm others. The author argued that the Harm Principle is to prevent harm to others. The basic principle is if quarantine prevents people from infecting others. It is fact that many people in quarantine will be exposed but not infected. It means that they are not dangerous to other people. Another principle that is described by the author is “Siracusa Principle”, which demands that coercive public health measures be legitimate, legal, necessary and represent the least restrictive means appropriate to reasonable achievement of public health goals. The basic concept is don’t use involuntary quarantine or surveillance devices. In conclusion, this article really brings the ideas on how to prevent diseases and the author describes ethical views of public health

If the government had taken these precautions, it wouldn’t guarantee the disease being controlled. But what it would do is lower the chances for the virus to spread more.

Kira Newman introduces the government justification of quarantine policy, stating “throughout outbreaks, the government asserted that plague control measures were acts of public health for the benefit of all” (Newman, 810). However, contrary to this argument there was a public opinion that “[such] isolation [was portrayed] as personal punishment rather than prudent policy” (Newman, 810). However, as the plague was progressing there was not enough space where to keep all infected people. The doctors recommended to leave the habitation located in the epicenter and move to another location, however, “many individuals were not fortunate enough to have a second residence, so quarantine commingled the sick and the well” (Newman, 812).

Thank you for contacting Best Friends with your concerns. No-kill is about getting to the root of animal homelessness by implementing efficient and effective programs to save the lives of the more than 9,000 companion animals killed in America’s shelter every day.

In the article “The continuing tensions between individual rights and public health”, it gives many examples of cases where the courts support an official's decision to quarantine a citizen as a way to prevent the spreading of a contagious disease (Bayer, 2007). In my opinion, the public has a right to be protected against the few who are infected because it serves the overall good of society. It also decreases the chance of having a chaotic situation such as extreme panic and the spread of disease. I do believe there should be a strong sense of beneficence in regard to helping those affected or harmed rather than just isolating sick

Pedefiles are a big problem in America now a days and the law is acting as if the pedefiles are getting less time while the drug dealers get more time but if you look at the money that is involved that’s a lot of government money now , maybe that's a problem , maybe that's why they get more time. Whatever it is a child is way more important than a drug dealer and some money. Woman and Men are scared to walk alone at night, how can we just let these bad men take over our fears and make us think like that?

Well you probably will most likely clean your cuts and scrapes with cool water. Then, you will use a soft washcloth to clean the surrounding skin around the wounds. Lastly, you will put a bandage or two on the wounds to prevent an infection.

Sufficient data shows that vaccines has made a major improvement in decreasing suffering and death of infectious diseases and syndrome. And yet, despite the mounting evidence that reassure the safety and value of vaccination, public health continuous faces the dilemma over individual choice, autonomy and protection of the entire population at risk. Children in developing countries now have more access to vaccines, yet, the debate continue over the requirement, including mandates immunization during public health emergency and school-aged. This paper addresses the framework for policy and laws that are associated with immunization that protect our children from infectious diseases.

Scholars a the Harvard School of Public health developed a Public Health- Human Rights Impact Assessment Instrument to evaluate possible human right violations that occur when governments take action in the name of public health that limit individual right. They argue that such actions must be takes as a last resort and must only occur when they meet follow specific, stringent human rights conditions. Now, if we apply these eight core human right principles as they apply to the mandatory vaccination policies in the United States, there are major problems. With the first rule since mandatory vaccination represents a restriction of a right the UN charter would require a thick review of any public health policy. The second rule questions whether the current measures by the government are excessive. The third

The anti-vaccination sentiment exists worldwide, with activists arguing that vaccines are ineffective with a high risk of side effects, encouraging people to forgo immunization, including the influenza inoculation. Conversely, I wonder if these same activists would promote anti-immunization and anti-influenza inoculation to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for health care providers and medical personnel, especially countries with high infectious disease rates and high risk assessment of influenza with pandemic potential. Moreover, would these activists be willing to promote these individuals rights to perform their specialties in the United States without proper vaccinations? The answer to the question is not by any means. Nevertheless, a person deciding whether to be

Paternalistic policies can be effective in preventing injuries and deaths in the population (Gostin, 2008). Paternalism exists throughout Contagion. In order to keep the masses safe from contracting the MEV-1 virus, public health agencies initiated safety guidelines for the general public to follow. From a public health aspect, individual interests must yield to those of the wider community to facilitate the public’s health, safety, and well-being. The public health tradition values prevention and views its successes or failures based on the benefits and burdens that accrue to populations rather than to individuals. This

This includes virtually any governmental action needed to control the threat to the population. Therefore, in order to fulfill that responsibility to ensure the public's health state public health authorities could (as they have in the past) temporarily constrain certain civil liberties. They can require private sector participation in public health objectives, shut down potentially harmful industries, destroy contaminated property, deport or prevent the entry of individuals who may infect others, ration supplies, and control the flow of information (Hodge, 2002).