ebola in nyc

[Guest LadyC]

well now you may have made the only valid point... maybe. it's still reckless endangerment because he knew he was exposed to the virus, and he knew he was feeling unwell, yet chose to do his own thing anyway. however, whether it can actually be prosecuted given the cdc's guidelines inadequate guidelines is unclear, at least to me. i'm not a lawyer. and really, nobody's going to know the answer to that unless it does happen to go to trial... and until (and if) anyone he came in contact with contracts the virus, that won't happen.

[ayin jade]

 

of course they should, onelight. nobody is advocating that they be treated without love and compassion. but they have a responsibility to be, well, responsible. and if they choose to act impulsively, endangering lives by going out into public when they are not feeling well but have not yet been diagnosed, then they should be prosecuted to whatever extent the law allows.

The fact is he has not done a single thing to be prosecuted for...he followed exactly the procedures he was told to follow. If they were inadequate that is the fault of the people who drew them up not this Dr.

 

 

He is an expert who should have known better. 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

of course they should, onelight. nobody is advocating that they be treated without love and compassion. but they have a responsibility to be, well, responsible. and if they choose to act impulsively, endangering lives by going out into public when they are not feeling well but have not yet been diagnosed, then they should be prosecuted to whatever extent the law allows.

The fact is he has not done a single thing to be prosecuted for...he followed exactly the procedures he was told to follow. If they were inadequate that is the fault of the people who drew them up not this Dr.

 

That is incorrect.   As a doctor who was there in W. Africa who had a more than reasonable expectation that he could have been infected by the disease, he would actually have known better than those who drew up the protocol, that the protocol was insufficient.  When he started feeling bad, is when he should have self-quarantined and should have done MORE than what was simply required by the CDC protocol.

 

Your argument would apply better to a regular person who has no experience with the disease.  Your argument doesn't work for a doctor who was better acquainted with the disease.

 

So yes, there is grounds for prosecution if it can be shown that he would have and should have known he was infected when he went out on the town and road three different subways and was exposing people to his infection.

[ncn]

I just read on the bbc , 

 

"US medics returning from treating Ebola patients in West Africa will be actively monitored but not placed in quarantine under new US health rules."

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

I just read on the bbc , 

 

"US medics returning from treating Ebola patients in West Africa will be actively monitored but not placed in quarantine under new US health rules."

 

 

This liberal administration refuses to put Americans first.  Federal guidelines/health rules simply do not go far enough to protect Americans. 

[Guest Teditis]

 

of course they should, onelight. nobody is advocating that they be treated without love and compassion. but they have a responsibility to be, well, responsible. and if they choose to act impulsively, endangering lives by going out into public when they are not feeling well but have not yet been diagnosed, then they should be prosecuted to whatever extent the law allows.

The fact is he has not done a single thing to be prosecuted for...he followed exactly the procedures he was told to follow. If they were inadequate that is the fault of the people who drew them up not this Dr.

 

 

Well said Logan! He did follow the guidelines and therefore he won't be prosecuted.

Nor should he be IMO.

 

Still, I think that he messed up like that doctor in the Dallas hospital who overlooked

information in Mr Duncan's triage report... they both could have done better but didn't

for reasons that only they know.

 

*Perhaps their mistakes will heighten awareness in the future.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Teditis

[Guest Butero]

My primary concern is not whether or not to prosecute this doctor for reckless endangerment.  My main concern is how do we proceed to protect the American people.  I fully support the 21 day mandatory quarantine for those who have come in contact with the virus.  I can see both sides of the reckless endangerment argument.  Yes, the doctor should have been more careful, but we have had so many different opinions as to how this virus is transmitted, I am not sure that even this doctor would have automatically known he was putting anyone in danger.  Lets just move to make sure something like this doesn't become common place when people have been in contact with ebola patients, and not spend our efforts on the mistakes made by the doctor in question.  If someone comes down with the disease as a result of contact with him, and they wish to seek monetary compensation in civil court, that seems reasonable.

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't think we need to be making excuses for this doctor.   Let me put it this way...   If am a hunter and I am in the woods and I am skilled, I know all of the safety protocols, but I see something rustling in the bushes, do I start shooting??   No.  I don't what it is.  It might be another person.   I wait until I have a clear shot before I take a chance.   I assume it is a human being until I know for sure that it is something I want to shoot.  When in doubt, I err on the side of saving/preserving human life.  If go ahead and shoot not knowing what was in the bushes and I end up killing a person, I will be prosecuted and deservedly so.

 

The same principle applies.So if the argument is,  "well maybe he didn't really know..."   Then shouldn't he have erred on the side of preserving life rather than selfishly going out and risking infection?   If he wasn't for certain if he was infectious the responsible thing to do was to assume he was infectious until he knew for sure one way or the other.  

 

Because he didn't and took a huge gamble knowing that there was a possibility that he was putting others at risk, his actions come down to reckless endangerment and he needs to be made an example of, to deter future health workers from making similar bad choices.

[Guest LadyC]

the thing i see most from those who disagree with my opinion is that they think he followed protocol. he did to an extent, but the CDC doesn't ONLY specify fever. it recommends people isolate themselves if they have body-aches (muscle soreness and fatigue) and headache ALSO. 

 

he failed to do that. 

[^j^]

I just read on the bbc , 

 

"US medics returning from treating Ebola patients in West Africa will be actively monitored but not placed in quarantine under new US health rules."

 

 

 

 

New US health rules.... put as many American's at risk of Ebola as possible.

 

We're outnumbered by people in power who don't care about the public welfare.