nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Coronavirus V's Citizens/Patients Rights?

drunkmonkey

What legal rights have people in Ireland when in comes to forced isolation, quarantine etc. Have the government the power to hold people against their will. Can you refuse to stay in hospital. Have the Gardaí or Army any power over citizens in extreme cases?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

sabrewolfe

I am sure its been updated since but section 38 paragraph 1 of the Health act of 1947 gave powers to the Chief Medical Officer to allow them to isolate a person suspected as the probable source of an infection.

Section 38 paragraph 2 subsection (o) states "force may, if necessary, be used for the purpose of carrying out any provision of this subsection."

I imagine that An Garda Siochana or the Army in their capacity as an aid to the civil power would be called on to enforce any isolation measure and to use such force as necessary to aid in the enforced isolation of any person suspected to be the source of an infection.

GM228

Similar thread here:-

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058050370/1/#post112437797

S38 can be invoked when an order is signed by both a HSE Medical Officer of Health and another registered medical practitioner.

Carawaystick

Whats the threshold for "Probable Source" ?

Victor

GM228 wrote: »

Similar thread here:-

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058050370/1/#post112437797

And if it gets completely out of hand https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=85314199

Peregrinus

Carawaystick wrote: »

Whats the threshold for "Probable Source" ?

The CMO's opinion, which must be formed following a medical inspection - i.e. if you haven't been inspected, the CMO can't form the opinion that you are a probable source of infection.

He needs to form the opinion not only (a) that you are a probable source of infection with an infectious disease but also (b) that your isolation is necessary as a safeguard against the spread of infection, as well as (c) that you cannot be effectively isolated in your own home.

maestroamado

I am surprised that the couple who have being confirmed were not brought to a suitable quarantine zone, the other Irish shipped out were quarantine in UK.

Peregrinus

maestroamado wrote: »

I am surprised that the couple who have being confirmed were not brought to a suitable quarantine zone, the other Irish shipped out were quarantine in UK.

You're talking about the two Irish people on the Diamond Princess who have tested positive? Once you are known to be infected you need treatment, which usually means going to hospital. Quarantine measures are observed in the hospital, of course.

It's the (much larger) numbers who have or may have been exposed to the virus, but who are not yet known to be infected, who get moved to isolated quarantine camps. Those of them who become symptomatic will be removed from those camps for treatment (and for the protection of others in the camps, of course).

maestroamado

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're talking about the two Irish people on the Diamond Princess who have tested positive? Once you are known to be infected you need treatment, which usually means going to hospital. Quarantine measures are observed in the hospital, of course.

It's the (much larger) numbers who have or may have been exposed to the virus, but who are not yet known to be infected, who get moved to isolated quarantine camps. Those of them who become symptomatic will be removed from those camps for treatment (and for the protection of others in the camps, of course).

No i am talking about the Irish couple who are in self imposed quarantine i assume in their own home, it was not announced which part of the country this is.
There were a few Irish in quarantine that was flown out with UK people.
These people were quarantine in UK for two weeks and i think they were all declared clear after 2 weeks.
If these people end up being infected i expect the people in the area not be too happy.
Hopefully all will be OK.

Peregrinus

maestroamado wrote: »

No i am talking about the Irish couple who are in self imposed quarantine i assume in their own home, it was not announced which part of the country this is.

Didn't know about this one. Are they known to be infected, or have they just been exposed?

In general, whether home quarantine or quarantine at a dedicated centre is the more effective measure is a matter of clinical judgment, and it depends on a number of factors. Dedicated quarantine centres are not a slam-dunk.

maestroamado

Peregrinus wrote: »

Didn't know about this one. Are they known to be infected, or have they just been exposed?

In general, whether home quarantine or quarantine at a dedicated centre is the more effective measure is a matter of clinical judgment, and it depends on a number of factors. Dedicated quarantine centres are not a slam-dunk.

The couple were somewhere i cannot remember where there are confirmed cases and they are now in self imposed quarantine, i just heard it one or two times.
Anyway there was an expert on TV just now and that's how we are doing it and only if there is a case confirmed will this be reviewed.

Peregrinus

Well, there might be a legal issue there, then. Under the legislation already mentioned removal into quarantine without your consent isn't possible unless (among other things) the CMO concludes, after you have been medically examined, that you are "a probable source of infection with an infectious disease". In this case, it doesn't seem that we can say that the couple concerned are a probable source of infection, since there is nothing so far to suggest that they are infected themselves. All we know is that they have been in an area where some people are infected. So, legally speaking, forcible quarantine may not be an option here.

And this brings up a related point. Even if forcible measures are an option, legally speaking, in terms of practically prevention of infection the measures and precautions that people agree to are often more effective than mandatory measures that they don't agree to, because if they are involved in making the decision about what should be done and buy into whatever is decided they are much more likely to consistently observe the agreed measures.

Quarantine at home is always the preferred option; it's much less onerous for the people being quarantined and they are much more likely to co-operate with it, and with the associated measures. And in fact this preference is written into the legislation; even if you are a probably source of infection one of the other conditions that must be satisfied before you can be carted off to a fever hospital is that the CMO must be of opinion that you cannot be effectively isolated in your own home.