Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Disease Outbreak - power to quarantine?

Options
  • 31-01-2020 10:57pm
    #1
    Azizur Rahman
    Registered Users Posts: 70 ✭✭


    Hello,

    With cornavirus making headlines and it popping up next door, I was curious about what options the government / HSE / emergency services have available to enforce a quarantine? E.g people confirmed to have a disease but refuse to stay in a quarantine zone? Thanks.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,712 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Wouldn't be too difficult to argue that preventing a potential epidemic outweighs the temporary detention of an individual.


  • Options
    #3
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,060 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Health Act 1947 Pt 4 Chapter 1 deals with infectious diseases, and provides for the detention and isolation of a person who is a probable source of infection. Check out s. 38 for the procedures and safeguards involved. Note that there was an amendment in 1953. I do not know if the provisions have ever been invoked in practice.


  • Options
    #4
    lozenges
    Registered Users Posts: 290 ✭✭lozenges


    Provisions already exist for this. It is possible to quarantine somebody with e.g. active TB against their will (although obviously it is pretty uncommon, as they usually voluntarily accept treatment).

    So I assume that can be expanded for other highly infectious and dangerous diseases.


  • Options
    #5
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,262 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Apparently there is someone in Peamount Hoapital with particularly virulent TB, who has been there since the 1960s. I get the impression he is happy enough to be there, but one can understand others would want to leave.

    While the constitution places restrictions on detaining someone, that is balanced by the public good.


  • Options
    #6
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    J.H. .v. Russell [2007] shows there is very little balancing, if there's no law permitting detention; the person must be released

    https://www.lawlibrary.ie/media/lawlibrary/media/Secure/20130313JudicialReviewOHiggins.pdf para39 or so


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,262 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    if there's no law permitting detention; the person must be released
    Oh sure, I was commenting on the constitutionality of the legislation.

    Could I ask, why is there a difference between Caffrey –v- Governor of Portlaoise Prison (paragraph 48 of the CPD lecture), where no stay was given and F.X .v. Clinical Director of the Central Mental Hospital and the DPP (paragraph 34) which was stayed for 2 days. I can understand the law -v- practicalities, but shouldn't judges rule on the law?


  • Options
    #8
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,740 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Victor wrote: »
    Apparently there is someone in Peamount Hoapital with particularly virulent TB, who has been there since the 1960s. I get the impression he is happy enough to be there, but one can understand others would want to leave.

    While the constitution places restrictions on detaining someone, that is balanced by the public good.

    In 2006 there was a media article claiming the sole TB patient there was only there for a few years at the time - https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/the-last-man-in-the-tb-sanitorium-26409485.html - so I'm not sure if that's entirely accurate.


Advertisement