Pros And Cons Of The Quarantine Debate

In an argument that perhaps dates back to the founding of America, the debate over whether personal liberties or the welfare of the public takes precedent continues to rage on. This debate has taken form in many debates, from the Massachusetts smallpox outbreak in 1901, which sparked argument over whether the state should force people to be vaccinated against the disease to protect the welfare of the public, or if the personal liberty of Massachusetts residents was more important. This debate has emerged again recently as the nation debates what to do with healthcare workers returning from treating Ebola patients in Africa: quarantine them to eliminate the risk of transmission, or allow them to go about their lives? The debate quickly became heated as strict quarantine laws were imposed largely based on the panic and hysteria Ebola brought about after the world witnessed tens of thousands of deaths in Africa and around the world.

This debate took on three forms: the medical aspect of whether the quarantine laws were based on science or hysteria, the legal aspect of whether mandatory Ebola quarantines are actually legal and in what circumstances, and the ethical aspect of whether the health of society is more important than the implications for the quarantined individual. Although isolation and quarantine have proven necessary in stopping the spread of many diseases in history and are often integral to eliminating outbreaks of dangerous diseases, these mandates have a history of being the result of panic, hysteria, and lack of understanding rather than being based on the virulence and infectivity of the pathogen in question.